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.
You posters are too smart for me, but I get your take on religion although a segment of christian religions as diverse as many are offer a morality check on a fickle human race drawn in to distracting affluencia, sin inappropriate behavior, lack of nurturing of children in good vs evil not withstanding the parent(s). All that said is the OTHER portion left over from the partial or segment of religion is doctrinal manmade nonsense. So a direct relationship with God via the likes of a evangelical nondenoms might provide the key in escaping the "club" the " organization" of those "only way" religions and their bondage ( some exceptions based on "real " pastors who are out there to tap.)
You posed the original question? Didn't you think to look at research---even research by a Christian Research Group?
It's important to look for contradictory research, too. The Barna Group has done Christian Research for years. They report that while church attendance is down, bible reading is up over the past couple of decades.
Here is an article by a young man who is actually making a defense for christianity against atheists. But you won't like what he says are the REASONS for the decline in attendance.
Quote:
But more than anything else, atheism's best advertisements may be the words of Christian leaders themselves.
When Pastor Mark Driscoll belittles women, Rick Warren argues against same-sex rights or Rob Bell equivocates on the concept of hell, we amplify those messages for them - and it helps us make our point.
(It goes without saying that the pairing of Pat Robertson and YouTube has been great for atheists.)
Pastors are no longer the final authority on the truth, and millennials know it.
Even if they hold Jesus' message in high esteem, the Bible as it has traditionally been preached by many evangelical pastors is becoming less and less attractive to them.
You posters are too smart for me, but I get your take on religion although a segment of christian religions as diverse as many are offer a morality check on a fickle human race drawn in to distracting affluencia, sin inappropriate behavior, lack of nurturing of children in good vs evil not withstanding the parent(s). All that said is the OTHER portion left over from the partial or segment of religion is doctrinal manmade nonsense. So a direct relationship with God via the likes of a evangelical nondenoms might provide the key in escaping the "club" the " organization" of those "only way" religions and their bondage ( some exceptions based on "real " pastors who are out there to tap.)
There is a saying of Socrates: "It is easy to withstand Socrates; it is the truth that you cannot withstand."
We are no smarter than any Christian, on average. It is just that the case for religious beliefs is very poor and the case for critical disbelief is massively better. That is why really smart cookies like Lane-Craig and Plantinga can be taken down by us bods, because they are trying to make a case out of nothing.
It is true that Bible was there as a record, and for a long time, there was no real reason to doubt it, give or take some minor witness discrepancy. But more critical discussion and more evidence has increasingly made it look unreliable. Heck - when I first logged on, half a dozen years ago, I was willing to credit the Exodus as having a factual basis. That - and the conquest - is now looking as untenable as the Flood.
As to the rest, if I get your meaning, there are benefits from religious organizations, but I wonder how much benefits they will be willing to offer if the faith -product they are peddling isn't being taken up. How long will it be before the 'no church - no prayers - no free creche, no free soup, becomes the rule'?
As to faith in a god shorn of man -made religious trappings. That is fine with us. Church authority gone out of the window, the realisation that the same 'god' they are all believing in is a very amorphous entity indeed and disinterest if not disbelief will become the result in time. And it doesn't matter if it doesn't.
You posed the original question? Didn't you think to look at research---even research by a Christian Research Group?
It's important to look for contradictory research, too. The Barna Group has done Christian Research for years. They report that while church attendance is down, bible reading is up over the past couple of decades.
"Even if they hold Jesus' message in high esteem, the Bible as it has traditionally been preached by many evangelical pastors is becoming less and less attractive to them."
This is actually what atheism has been offering from the start. Cherry -picking what you like in the Bible is hypocritical and dishonest and has long been recognized as being so (other than by those who do it). But this process is the mechanism of secular humanist morality, because anything that is argued out and seen as good can be taken and what is not is left out - no matter where it comes from. The Bible, Moby Dick or Harry Potter. And that means that doctrinal denunciations of Harry Potter as 'satanic' can be ignored and if you want to read it, you can.
I also noted the '6 kind of atheists'. I can be indulgent about that. There is an awful lot of overlap between militant atheists and anti -religion atheists. But that is not about atheism as such. There is only one kind of atheism - disbelief in gods. Though you can also find several kinds of disbelief (1) and the logical basis for that is agnosticism - not knowing whether there is a god or not (and I look to the day when we no longer have to explain that agnosticism is Not being unsure whether they believe or not) and there is no good reason or evidence presented to think there is one.
As posted recently, Anthony Flew was given good reason to abandon his atheists stance and that is what any atheist should rationally do if presented with convincing evidence. It turned out that he had been bamboozled with a scientific -looking hypothesis that turned out to have a mortal refutation (2). So, that was the very best effort to make scientific Creationism credible. Nothing else does as well, though the argument from consciousness still has a lot of mileage, especially with the NDE aspect.
But those are actually about reasons to believe in a god, soul and afterlife. But do not validate any particular Holy Book or religion, though those doing the arguments think it does, because (to them) there is only one god and religion on the table. Cue 'Which God?' Argument from consciousness/NDE's - like first cause- gets you no nearer validating a particular god, Holy Book or religion.
"Sort out Which God that is and which religion and Holy Book - and then get back to us."
P.s Except the article on the papyrus fragment "Gospel of Jesus' wife" is a must -read. There were doubts about this being genuine from the start, but (of course ) counter -arguments could be found, as they should be. But a new bit of evidence - a related Gospel of John fragment that is (so it seems) demonstrably a forgery is tipping the balance towards a fake. It is a pity as I rather liked the idea of a Gospel of Jesus' wife.
(1) don't believe because you don't know (e.g babies) disbelief because you don't care. Disbelief because you don't like religion. The individual rationale there is open to critique and those are the kinds of atheists who can be talked around around by theists with the array of cunningly presented evangelical packages. The Thinking atheist (TM) who has thought about the issues,and you can divide that into the lifetimer like myself or the deconvert.
(2) the bacillus cicilium argument for new features being unable to evolve because they would make the organism unviable, failed when it was shown that evolving features can serve two purposes at the same time, but one (originally incidental) purpose can become the principal one as the new organ evolves. That was the killer for I/C and, while the realization that I/C was merely an attempt to put I/D on a scientific basis and I/D itself was Creationism in a lab coat and creationism itself is of course Faith in Genesis as literally true, did I/D no credit, that was merely the dirty tricks behind the non - science.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-20-2015 at 04:33 AM..
Reason: No, it won't do, yet.
Cherry -picking what you like in the Bible is hypocritical and dishonest and has long been recognized as being so (other than by those who do it). But this process is the mechanism of secular humanist morality, because anything that is argued out and seen as good can be taken and what is not is left out - no matter where it comes from. The Bible, Moby Dick or Harry Potter. And that means that doctrinal denunciations of Harry Potter as 'satanic' can be ignored and if you want to read it, you can.
So, cherry picking is a good thing when an atheist does it, but if someone believes there is a God and cherry picks, it's hypocritical and dishonest? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Perhaps you mean that if someone cherry picks from the bible while insisting it is the infallible and inerrant authoritative word of God, that is hypocritical?
I'm surprised that this is difficult for you. In real life we know that we make mistakes and we can change our minds, so everything is up for debate. Including what the Holy Books say.
In religion that is not the case and if you accept a religion it is (or so it seems to me) hypocritical and dishonest to pick the bits you like and discard the bits you don't. This can range from inventing a new religion loosely based on Christianity to rewriting the Bible to make it work (e.g trying to rewrite Genesis with cloud cover to get over the making of the sun, days after there was day and night) to trying to make it say that God doesn't approve slavery when it clearly says that it does - in both Testaments, too.
If you don't do that of course, then you are effectively saying that the Bible is a book with no more authority than any other. Which is what I was saying. But the Bibletext -fiddlers want to have the best of both worlds - have the Book with authority of God so we have to accept what it says without debate while at the same time chucking out wholesale any bits they don't agree with. Which I think is what you said.
If that isn't dishonest and hypocritical, I don't know what is .
Well, actually, I do...the Prosperity Gospel. If that isn't a complete inversion of everything Christianity supposedly stands for...
I submit that Adam fell from revelation down to education, from discerning to learning.
We should be a much higher order.
Then wouldn't that be G()Ds doing then? After all, G()D saw that no matter that he and Adam had a fine relationship in that department, he still seemed 'lonely' while watching rabbits and things rut and yearned for the flesh of his flesh.
Adam obviously moved from the position of revelation and discerning to that of education and learning with the advent of Eve and G()D granted Adam the desires of Adams heart...
yup. good observation mike. there are five types of people that we have to try and use knowledge base claims with. Four of them are not open to any suggestions that counter the safety of their world view via statements of belief and not knowledge. But we have to keep trying.
"faithless" to me just means unfocused. so the breaking apart of a single goal will cause war and what not and maybe sometime in the future it will find a single goal again. It has done so in the past. Even if 'atheism" is the baseless focal point at least it is one to me. Fundies are all the same to me.
But I really think we are starting the next evolutionary step. well, I hope anyway. And in the grand scheme of things earth doesn't matter, only life matters. And the data is showing that the universe may be life itself.
I'm surprised that this is difficult for you. In real life we know that we make mistakes and we can change our minds, so everything is up for debate. Including what the Holy Books say.
In religion that is not the case and if you accept a religion it is (or so it seems to me) hypocritical and dishonest to pick the bits you like and discard the bits you don't. This can range from inventing a new religion loosely based on Christianity to rewriting the Bible to make it work (e.g trying to rewrite Genesis with cloud cover to get over the making of the sun, days after there was day and night) to trying to make it say that God doesn't approve slavery when it clearly says that it does - in both Testaments, too.
If you don't do that of course, then you are effectively saying that the Bible is a book with no more authority than any other. Which is what I was saying. But the Bibletext -fiddlers want to have the best of both worlds - have the Book with authority of God so we have to accept what it says without debate while at the same time chucking out wholesale any bits they don't agree with. Which I think is what you said.
If that isn't dishonest and hypocritical, I don't know what is .
Well, actually, I do...the Prosperity Gospel. If that isn't a complete inversion of everything Christianity supposedly stands for...
And I'm surprised that what I asked is difficult for you.
Why would you think that a person who believes in God but who does not believe that the bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God would insist that you have to accept what it says without debate?
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.
I can be indulgent about that. There is an awful lot of overlap between militant atheists and anti -religion atheists. But that is not about atheism as such. There is only one kind of atheism - disbelief in gods. Though you can also find several kinds of disbelief (1) and the logical basis for that is agnosticism - not knowing whether there is a god or not (and I look to the day when we no longer have to explain that agnosticism is Not being unsure whether they believe or not) and there is no good reason or evidence presented to think there is one.
Except the article on the papyrus fragment "Gospel of Jesus' wife" is a must -read. There were doubts about this being genuine from the start, but (of course 
