Fair enough then.
That being the case, to what conclusion of mine are you referring?
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.
Will Science Eventually Drown Religion?
- Thread starter sderenzi
- Start date
Fair enough then.
That being the case, to what conclusion of mine are you referring?
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.
glaucon
this
The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...
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
this
The difference being, it's not absurd to disbelieve in imaginary beings...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
so in otherwords if you have never been to china, china is fiction?
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.
so in otherwords if you have never been to china, china is fiction?
*************
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.
On the contrary Religon is not drowning, it is wishful thinking(akin to the delusion of the religious themselves) to interpret that.
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.
Not at all. I've experienced quite a substantial amount of evidence in support of the fact that China is not fictive.
glaucon
what is the difference there being no evidence and there being a complete historical lack of evidence ?
what is the difference there being no evidence and there being a complete historical lack of evidence ?
Knowledge of what?
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.you mean you never wondered why gulags didn't catalyze a religious renaisance in communist russia and china
not just what you think, your opinion is not good enough.
links man links.
evidence man evidence.
else, it's all just hot air.
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.
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.
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
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.
These places are secular as opposed to atheistic - You could do an experiment by seeing if a person in religious garb could clear customs in china(even in present day china) and how the same situation would compare to australia to determine the difference
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.
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
Last edited: