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.
Then it explain it. Enough with the bold talk. You just can't stand that a highly educated man who won an award exposes the illogical nature of atheism. So all you can do is talk trash about the award or say, well he is just one man. Why on earth should I value your opinion over his? Atheists are too swollen with pride to admit they are wrong.
The Templeton Foundation funds the Pew Research Center and yet your ilk has absolutely NO problem using Pew research studies whenever it is negative towards us. Just shows how atheists are just a bunch of flaming hypocrites. You'll accept ANYTHING without question if it suits an anti-Christian argument. But when it doesn't, oh suddenly the source is not credible.
Yet you don't even bother to explain what he got wrong. Typical hollow bold talk.
Jeff, the response is rather boring and full of contention as well.
The physicist describes himself as an agnostic, and goes on to say that he is opposed to atheism because he objects to the declaration “I don’t believe in god”, and he thinks that declaration is anti-scientific because it closes down discussion.
On this board, we have argued ad naseum as to the definition of atheism. This is simply more of the same, a semantic discussion over terminology and relative levels of certainty. As an example, I identify as an atheist, but I don’t shut down discussion on the nature of god, as evidenced by my participation on this forum.
That is why nobody takes this prize seriously. It doesn’t actually say anything, other than the person being honored has a different definition than many atheists do. So what?
Is that a civil enough answer? Do you find that insulting or hateful? I truly hope not, as I don’t intend it to be. On a different thread I offered to answer any questions honestly, and although you did not ask any, I am taking that offer and using this question to fulfill my promise. I will continue to answer your questions honestly, and do my best not to 8nsult, but I don’t know where your boundaries are. If you help me out, I will be better able to conduct an open, honest, civil, respectful discourse with you.
As an example, I identify as an atheist, but I don’t shut down discussion on the nature of god, as evidenced by my participation on this forum.
Regrettably, the forum does shut down discussion on the nature of God because it bans any scientific discussion of a "natural" as opposed to a "supernatural" God, primarily because the most popular understanding of God seems to be "supernatural."
Then it explain it. Enough with the bold talk. You just can't stand that a highly educated man who won an award exposes the illogical nature of atheism. So all you can do is talk trash about the award or say, well he is just one man. Why on earth should I value your opinion over his? Atheists are too swollen with pride to admit they are wrong.
The Templeton Foundation funds the Pew Research Center and yet your ilk has absolutely NO problem using Pew research studies whenever it is negative towards us. Just shows how atheists are just a bunch of flaming hypocrites. You'll accept ANYTHING without question if it suits an anti-Christian argument. But when it doesn't, oh suddenly the source is not credible.
Yet you don't even bother to explain what he got wrong. Typical hollow bold talk.
Science can't give people hope and meaning to life. Science did not heal my friend from late stage thyroid cancer. Science can not defeat death. Your scientific fact is only as good as until another new discovery invalidates the old.
Sure it is. You have put all your faith into fallible man.
The winner of the Templeton Prize seems in error of the meaning of the term atheist and atheism. That is the entire argument put forward to you. He, like many others, uses the term agnostic rather than atheists. The is the entire problem. He does not believe that it is scientific to belief that you know there is no God. He claims to be an agnostic Jew and 8 am an agnostic atheist from Jewish descent. If I understood atheism to mean what he claims then I would call myself an agnostic Jew.
The winner of the Templeton Prize is neither a theist nor a Christian. Let that sink in, you think we are anti Christian because we do not agree with the definition provided by an agnostic Jew.
Maybe explain how an agnostic Jew using the term atheism differently reflects that the percentage of religious Americans is not going down? Also please explain how if the religiousnes in the States is not decreasing can you blame atheism for the increase in suicide rates?
Did prayer save your friend from late stage tyroid cancer? The kid across from my house when I was growing up was from a religious family but he was afraid of needles so he did not get a polio shot. He got polio and after years in an iron lung he died from it. Without the science and the polio vaccine many on our block would have too.
In conclusion, the winner of the Templeton Prize has a view of God very similar to the atheists you constantly attack and in know way is a Christian nor did his statement support Christainity. You falsely accused us, once again of attacking Christians and Christainity. Neither one was attacked. You have claimed so often that you apologize when you are in error.
You are wrong that no one explained what was wrong with the scientists statement and you claimed we attacked him because we are anti Christian.
Then how do these graph people explain the growth of non-denominational evangelical churches like Life Church? They just announced the opening of their 33rd location. Pretty good growth for a church that only started 21 years ago in a garage. I suspect they could grow faster if they'd go into debt. But they pay for all of their physical facilities in cash. I know hard core Christians will knock them for not preaching hellfire and damnation but they are reaching folks that would never step foot in those mainline denominations.
Then how do these graph people explain the growth of non-denominational evangelical churches like Life Church? They just announced the opening of their 33rd location. Pretty good growth for a church that only started 21 years ago in a garage. I suspect they could grow faster if they'd go into debt. But they pay for all of their physical facilities in cash. I know hard core Christians will knock them for not preaching hellfire and damnation but they are reaching folks that would never step foot in those mainline denominations.
It's been interesting to watch their growth.
It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? The graph is talking about the US population as a whole, it isn’t focusingon one small self-selected slice.
Some churches are growing. Others are declining. Overall, more are decl8ning when compared to the ones that ar3 growing. If the church you refer to is experiencing explosive growth, it is poaching people from other denominations. If it is pulling from the “nones”, it is converting them as fast as they are leaving other religions in other areas.
It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? The graph is talking about the US population as a whole, it isn’t focusingon one small self-selected slice.
Some churches are growing. Others are declining. Overall, more are decl8ning when compared to the ones that ar3 growing. If the church you refer to is experiencing explosive growth, it is poaching people from other denominations. If it is pulling from the “nones”, it is converting them as fast as they are leaving other religions in other areas.
Based on my observations, interviews and experiences it is drawing in the "nones". I do agree with the assessment that other mainstream denominations are in decline.
They are leaving the old denominations for more charismatic and non-denom churches.
The graph doesn’t show that however. It primarily shows a move from the mainline Protestant to none. I am sure that there is movement from all groups shown to all other groups, but the rest seems to net out. The charismatic and non-denominational churches are not growing, they are roughly stable.
The graph doesn’t show that however. It primarily shows a move from the mainline Protestant to none. I am sure that there is movement from all groups shown to all other groups, but the rest seems to net out. The charismatic and non-denominational churches are not growing, they are roughly stable.
That is what the graph shows. It was a swap (apparently) between mainline religion and 'Nones' and the rest pretty much the same.
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.
