tl;dr what was the result of the debate on 3/30..the one that this thread was about.

Quote :

"•516 cards turned in •286 Dr. Craig made the clearer/better presentation •130 Dr. Krauss made the clearer/better presentation •100 stated it was a draw "

Well there we go, God's side won.

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 4:19 PM. Reason : lkj]

4/19/2011 4:18:25 PM

the result was probably "no one has compelling evidence either way"

probably followed up with "both guys are raging douchebags"

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2011 4:19:03 PM

Fuck, I'd agree that Dr. Craig made a clearer/better presentation. It was logically flawed, but it was nice and confident.

Dr. Krauss wasn't going to convince anyone.

Quote :

"the result was probably "no one has compelling evidence either way" probably followed up with "both guys are raging douchebags""

These are unsubstantiated claims. I demand you provide evidence!

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2011 4:41:40 PM

http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/intermediate/the-evidence-for-christianity.htm

4/20/2011 2:01:20 AM

Quote :

""Unknown reliability is effectively the same as unreliability." in some contexts, yes. but, when the discussion is specifically about the veracity of a given text, then you can't pull that sleight of hand. nice try"

Excuse me, but can you please enlighten us as to what contexts require MORE skepticism than ancient texts written by unknown authors offering supernatural claims?

Do we assume the Odyssey is a reliable text and that its claims about Gods are true? No. What about the Epic of Gilgamesh? The Vedas which claim to be divinely revealed? No.

Now here's the part where you say THESE ARE IRREREVANT RAWWWR. That's right, critical thinking is completely irrelevant to maintaining your delusions.

Quote :

"and where was that evidence again? lemme guess: "God doesn't do what I want him to do" and "The Bible doesn't do what it never said it does." Got it"

reliable - authentic: conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief; "an authentic account by an eyewitness"; "reliable information"

I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but here it goes again: the bible says false things about reality.

It is therefore, by definition, UNRELIABLE. You can't depend on it for truth because it says false shit. You've already agreed on the first point with your "teaching astrophysics to third graders" bullshit on the 2nd page, so I don't see why this is so difficult.

And one more thing; don't you dare pull out the word "scientific" again after refusing to define it multiple times in this thread.

[Edited on April 20, 2011 at 8:25 AM. Reason : d]

4/20/2011 8:22:58 AM

Quote :

"http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/intermediate/the-evidence-for-christianity.htm"

Tell me which parts of that are compelling to you and I'll refute them for you. That page is basically a stream of consciousness.

4/20/2011 9:14:40 AM

Quote :

"the result was probably "no one has compelling evidence either way""

And therefore it makes sense to assume there is no god. There is no compelling reason to believe that there is any more than there is compelling reason to believe there are leprechauns. You betcha!

[Edited on April 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2011 4:49:22 PM

So what exactly is your world view stu? Do you believe in something or is it a lack of belief in something?

4/21/2011 1:43:56 AM

I'm a skeptic. I don't believe in things unless supported by reason and evidence (and I don't use aaronburro's insane definition of 'evidence'.) Necessarily as a product of this I'm also a naturalist, humanist, and atheist.

4/21/2011 9:13:37 AM

What a stupid question.

^ Eh, not necessarily a humanist. Skepticism doesn't have much to say about one's morality. You can just as easily be a skeptic and a nihilist, a relativist, or worse.

[Edited on April 21, 2011 at 9:20 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2011 9:18:21 AM

Sort of right. Humanism is more a product of my atheism + ethics.

4/21/2011 9:59:12 AM

So then what do you believe about Jesus Christ?

4/21/2011 3:39:01 PM

^
Your questions are very vague. It would help to be a little more specific.

4/21/2011 3:49:55 PM

Quote :

"o then what do you believe about Jesus Christ?"

I believe it's most likely he was one of many people claiming to be the Jewish Messiah but I don't believe he was resurrected or anything like that.

I don't believe it's 100% certain that he even existed, but it's possible.

[Edited on April 21, 2011 at 4:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2011 4:39:40 PM

Quote :

"Excuse me, but can you please enlighten us as to what contexts require MORE skepticism than ancient texts written by unknown authors offering supernatural claims?"

actually, the original statement alone was false. "Unknown reliability" is NOT the same as "not reliable." One means you don't know, the other means it is not. Any non-comatose person should be able to see that. BUT, the context I was specifically talking about was using such a text in a proof. I'm sorry that you don't comprehend common English and logical constructs.

Quote :

"I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but here it goes again: the bible says false things about reality. "

such as...

Quote :

"It is therefore, by definition, UNRELIABLE. You can't depend on it for truth because it says false shit."

So, because Newton said a few things that didn't turn out to be true, all of his work is 100% bullshit, right? got it.

Quote :

"And therefore it makes sense to assume there is no god."

to you.

Quote :

"And one more thing; don't you dare pull out the word "scientific" again after refusing to define it multiple times in this thread."

1) where was I even requested to do so?
2) RAWR RAWR RAWR!!! I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU! SO YOU CAN'T USE A CERTAIN WORD. RAWR RAWR RAWR!!!

[Edited on April 22, 2011 at 8:05 PM. Reason : ]

4/22/2011 8:01:58 PM

Quote :

"to you."

To anyone with an ounce of reason.

Quote :

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

or an aaronburro of this time.

4/22/2011 9:56:45 PM

Quote :

"To anyone with an ounce of reason."

oh look at that, poisoning the well! good work.

Quote :

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them."

It most certainly is the business of a skeptic to do so when HE IS THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM THAT HE CAN DISPROVE IT. kind of, you know, the fucking point.

Quote :

"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

Of course. But, again, no one here is making anything resembling such a claim that there is no reason to doubt Christian claims. Nice straw man!

4/22/2011 10:43:13 PM

Quote :

""Unknown reliability" is NOT the same as "not reliable.""

Except it is. And you agreed! If you haven't established that a particular text is a reliable source of truth, then you cannot rely on it to offer truth. But I'm not going to stop you from believing in sirens and cyclops by default if that's what you want to do.

Quote :

""I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but here it goes again: the bible says false things about reality." such as..."

Seriously? Start with the entire story of Genesis. Then pi = 3, the world is flat, humans can live to 900, etc.

Dude, why do you keep acting like a know nothing? You already said that God lied to avoid teaching astrophysics to third graders. Then you move to square one.

Quote :

"So, because Newton said a few things that didn't turn out to be true, all of his work is 100% bullshit, right? got it."

Straw man like whoa. Nobody ever said the bible is 100% bullshit. But it is not 100% true either. I mean NYC is real even if Peter Parker doesn't exist.

The difference is Newton wasn't fucking all powerful and all knowing, nor claimed to be.

Quote :

""And one more thing; don't you dare pull out the word "scientific" again after refusing to define it multiple times in this thread." 1) where was I even requested to do so? 2) RAWR RAWR RAWR!!! I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU! SO YOU CAN'T USE A CERTAIN WORD. RAWR RAWR RAWR!!!"

1) Page 2. Do I need to quote the whole conversation?
2)If you're going to say some dumb shit, equivocate like a mother fucker, and then repeatedly refuse to explain yourself, then yea maybe you should stop doing that.

4/22/2011 10:50:05 PM

Quote :

"Except it is. And you agreed! If you haven't established that a particular text is a reliable source of truth, then you cannot rely on it to offer truth."

right. But when someone is specifically saying it is false, that is totally different. Also, unknown truth means false, right? Unknown height means zero height, right? unknown number means zero, right?

Quote :

"Then pi = 3"

Where does the Bible claim pi=3
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

Quote :

"the world is flat"

where does it say such a thing? oh no, it uses the idiom "four corners of the earth? holy shit! so really, show me that verse that says "the earth is flat." I'm waiting for it.

Quote :

"humans can live to 900"

1) have you proven that they can't?
2) Have you absolutely proven that this guy didn't, in fact, live that long? No? ok then. not a falsehood, just an incredible claim that should be doubted.

Quote :

"You already said that God lied to avoid teaching astrophysics to third graders."

Only, not really. but thanks for trying

Quote :

"Straw man like whoa. Nobody ever said the bible is 100% bullshit. But it is not 100% true either."

Oh really. care to defend this, then:

Quote :

"You can't depend on it for truth because it says false shit."

as in, nothing in it is dependable, because one or two things are not? sounds like one and the same to me... Hey, Einstein said a few things that can't be depended upon. Thus, E != mc^2, right?

Quote :

"Page 2. Do I need to quote the whole conversation?"

sure. I'd love to see where someone requested that I define science.

Quote :

"If you're going to say some dumb shit, equivocate like a mother fucker, and then repeatedly refuse to explain yourself, then yea maybe you should stop doing that."

so, again... RAWR RAWR RAWR!!! I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU! SO YOU CAN'T USE A CERTAIN WORD. RAWR RAWR RAWR!!! got it

[Edited on April 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM. Reason : ]

4/22/2011 11:17:02 PM

Quote :

"oh look at that, poisoning the well! good work."

And it's not when suggesting that I'm the only one that feels that lack of evidence should mean lack of belief? You're a crybaby. This statement has nothing to do with the argument.

Quote :

"It most certainly is the business of a skeptic to do so when HE IS THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM THAT HE CAN DISPROVE IT. kind of, you know, the fucking point."

You're an idiot. We've been over burden of proof like a billion times and that quotation was just more of the same.

Quote :

"Of course. But, again, no one here is making anything resembling such a claim that there is no reason to doubt Christian claims. Nice straw man!"

It's a quotation, genius. It illustrates the burden of proof and the ridiculousness of believing in Christianity.

Quote :

"1) have you proven that they can't? 2) Have you absolutely proven that this guy didn't, in fact, live that long? No? ok then. not a falsehood, just an incredible claim that should be doubted."

And there you are, being agnostic about every claim in one breath and then admitting that it's logically untenable in another. Incredible claims that lack incredible evidence should be considered false, otherwise you have no way to discern reality from non-reality.

4/23/2011 11:31:22 AM

So why are we so quick to believe what we know about Julius Caesar when we only have around 10 manuscripts of his writings. The bible has over 24,000 manuscripts. The Iliad has the second largest amount of manuscripts at 643. I have no doubt the historical reliability of the bible.

4/23/2011 1:27:15 PM

So your level of belief is based on the number of manuscripts? Does that mean an issue of Time Magazine is completely false in your eyes? None of those things have ever happened…?

I would think it would be FAR more logical to use, I don’t know, evidence and reason to determine what you believe, not how many times people decided to create a variant of something.

But logic is not on the side of people who like to think the earth is 7000 years old.

[Edited on April 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM. Reason : ]

4/23/2011 1:49:58 PM

Somebody likes http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm.

In any case, how does the number of manuscripts validate the content of the Bible? Even if every Bible that ever existed was an exact copy of the original, how does that prove historical reliability of the original?

The Iliad is a story. The number of manuscripts (and any descrepancies) have no bearing on its 'acceptance' as an historically accurate document. Same for Shakespeare. The Gallic War, Histories, etc. should be and are taken with a grain of salt. None of those books are considered to be word-for-word literal and accurate accounts of ancient events.

[Edited on April 23, 2011 at 1:57 PM. Reason : i'm slow]

4/23/2011 1:54:52 PM

Also, the existence of God and whether Christianity is true are entirely different issues. Christians don’t have a monopoly on God.

Christians (and most religions) have stories and descriptions that aim to define what God is. But when you compare what people claim the Christian God (or muslim god, or whatever god) wants to how the world works, it’s clear there is a disconnect. Which means something MUST be wrong with what people think their religion’s god is.

If God’s will can never be defied as Christians say, then is it God’s WILL that less and less people now are believing in Christianity? If God has a Christian’s back in everything they do, then shouldn’t a Christian be more likely to succeed in doing Godly things? Does this mean over the past hundred years in the US, that Christians trying to convert people to Christianity have been defying God’s will?

You can’t say that people should believe in the Christian God because it will let them understand the will of God, but have Christians who supposedly have been following the will of God fail in their goals.

It’s pretty obvious that as an organized religion, Christianity has no meaning. It’s just a big social group that people get social benefits from, that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. Any truth to Christianity was diluted hundreds of years ago by the Roman Catholic church and many other massive, powerful political organizations that used religion to seize power.

This is outside all the psychological, geological, astrophysical, and archeological evidence that Christianity isn’t a unique philosophy.

4/23/2011 2:02:59 PM

Quote :

"http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/intermediate/the-evidence-for-christianity.htm"

the evidence (unless I missed some)

(1)

Quote :

"Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang . . . and you ask me, 'What made that bang?’ and I reply, ‘Nothing, it just happened.’ You wouldn’t accept that. In fact you would find my reply quite unintelligible. Well, what’s true of the little bang is also true of the Big Bang. It must have been caused. From the very nature of the case, this cause would have to be uncaused, immaterial, changeless, timeless, and enormously powerful."

(2)
The strength of gravity, rate of expansion, etc at the Big Bang were "fine tuned"

Quote :

"There is no physical reason why these quantities have the values they do. The inference to an intelligent Designer of the cosmos seems far more rational than the atheistic hypothesis of chance."

(3)
Christianity is true because New Testament Scholars agree that the New Testament is correct and because Jesus was resurrected.

------------

As far as (2) goes, he tries to use a firing squad analogy to show that atheists are wrong to say that we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in the one universe that allowed us to exist. He always uses people (intelligent agents) in his analogies to show why there must have been a designer. A better analogy I think would be dumping a bag of scrabble tiles out and having them spell something without arranging them. There's a very small chance this would happen, and if you found yourself looking at it you would be amazed, and all your friends wouldn't believe that it happened by itself.

[Edited on April 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/24/2011 2:08:56 PM

Design is an illusion. The complexity of living things has been fully explained by a simple and elegant theorum supported by mountains of falsifiable evidence. Not only that there are many many examples in living things (and in the Universe) which if designed were poorly designed. Of course these "poor designs" are easily explained by iterative changes over a long period of time.

4/24/2011 2:41:34 PM

Quote :

"And it's not when suggesting that I'm the only one that feels that lack of evidence should mean lack of belief?"

i've done no such thing. I've pointed out that, to you, it makes sense not to believe. There was no attachment of insult there. Someone is touchy...

Quote :

"We've been over burden of proof like a billion times and that quotation was just more of the same."

Sure. But, WHEN YOU PUT IT IN A PROOF, things change. dumbfuck. That's all I've been harping on on. How about this?

1) Cows supposedly eat meat
2) Cows have never been seen not eating monkeys
3) Therefor, cows eat meat.

well, I don't have to prove my assertion in step 2, right? Nope, not at all.

Also, I'm trying to figure out why someone as ostensibly intelligent as you can claim that the statement "I can prove that X is false" does NOT bear the burden of proof. I mean, jesus. It's fucking insane that ANYONE would make that claim. Yes, that's poisoning the well, because going against the accepted FACT that someone making a claim bears a burden of proof to prove it is absurd. It's one thing to say "I can cast doubt." It's entirely another to say "I can disprove." One carries a burden of proof. One doesn't. I'm sorry that you simply are so fucking stupid that you don't understand the difference.

Quote :

"It's a quotation, genius."

No it's not. It's a strawman. especially since you then applied it to me.

Quote :

"And there you are, being agnostic about every claim in one breath and then admitting that it's logically untenable in another."

Not at all. Someone is saying he can prove something when he fucking can't! I'm sorry, but when you make a god damned claim of "I CAN PROVE THIS!!!" then the burden of proof ALWAYS falls on you.

Quote :

"But when you compare what people claim the Christian God (or muslim god, or whatever god) wants to how the world works, it’s clear there is a disconnect."

Really? Where. Oooooooooh, right, the ol' "God doesn't do what I want him to do, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!" defense. nice.

Quote :

"If God has a Christian’s back in everything they do,"

hmmm, never seen that claim in the Bible. nice.

Quote :

"You can’t say that people should believe in the Christian God because it will let them understand the will of God, but have Christians who supposedly have been following the will of God fail in their goals."

Yep, because truly God promised that everything would be happy sunshine harmony harmony oh love! yep. Need me to tell you what fallacy that is?

Quote :

"http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/intermediate/the-evidence-for-christianity.htm"

even I will say that that shit is pathetic.

Quote :

"The complexity of living things has been fully explained by a simple and elegant theorum supported by mountains of falsifiable evidence."

And yet, that still proves nothing. because, if something created them in that way, then it does NOT rule out design. Good work!

[Edited on April 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

4/24/2011 3:13:57 PM

Given your ridiculous standards of justifiable belief, explain to me why any theistic belief is justified, including your presumably pseudo-Christian beliefs. Why is atheism not the de facto position pending evidence(which you freely admit does not currently exist)?

4/24/2011 3:50:42 PM

Quote :

"Given your ridiculous standards of justifiable belief, explain to me why any theistic belief is justified, including your presumably pseudo-Christian beliefs."

On what are you basing my "ridiculous standards of justifiable belief"? At no point have I stated ANYWHERE what would be a reasonable thing to believe. NOWHERE. Show me where I have done such a thing? Instead, I am talking about PROOF, which goes beyond mere belief, and which is what YOU CLAIM TO HAVE.

[Edited on April 24, 2011 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ]

4/24/2011 3:54:57 PM

Without whining about anything else in this thread, just explain why you don't believe in Zeus. I don't give a damn that this thread isn't about your personal beliefs, this question is relevant to explain justifiable belief given proof or lack thereof.

Incoming deflection I'm sure.

4/24/2011 4:27:56 PM

Quote :

"Without whining about anything else in this thread, just explain why you don't believe in Zeus."

Again, my beliefs don't fucking matter when it comes to YOU being able to provide alleged proof of the non-existence of the Christian God. I love, however, how hung up you are on what I believe or don't believe, instead of supporting your own claim. It's quite telling

4/24/2011 5:05:47 PM

Look dipshit, we've already established that given your insane qualifications for proof no theistic claim (positive or negative) can be proven. Even though I don't agree with your standards of proof for theistic or philosophical claims, I'll concede that so we can move on. So, now will you tell the thread why you don't believe in Zeus or Odin?

4/24/2011 6:12:22 PM

Quote :

"Look dipshit, we've already established that given your insane qualifications for proof no theistic claim (positive or negative) can be proven"

And what is insane about my qualifications? Because it doesn't allow you to say shit that you can't back up? got it.

Quote :

"So, now will you tell the thread why you don't believe in Zeus or Odin?"

nope.

4/24/2011 7:00:38 PM

I'm not going any further down that rabbit hole with you. You don't even accept one of the world's most well known apologists arguments as evidence even if they were not unsound.

Your unwillingness to continue this conversation after I have conceded the point makes you look obtuse. Is it so difficult to type a cogent sentence when your "YOU SAID YOU COULD PROVE IT, neener neener neener" canard is no longer available?

4/24/2011 8:35:34 PM

Quote :

"You don't even accept one of the world's most well known apologists arguments as evidence even if they were not unsound. "

If it's only an argument, then no, it's not evidence. There's a reason that evidence is submitted to a court, while an argument is not.

Quote :

"Your unwillingness to continue this conversation after I have conceded the point makes you look obtuse."

Because there's nothing else to discuss. You said you could prove something. You haven't. What else do you want? Why do you care about my beliefs? Are you that insecure in your own?

[Edited on April 24, 2011 at 8:47 PM. Reason : ]

4/24/2011 8:46:31 PM

Quote :

"So, now will you tell the thread why you don't believe in Zeus or Odin?"

You know -- and I realize of course that you could bring up numerous religions thriving today -- I have to say I think there would be good reasons for not pursuing an extinct religion. These are gods with a reputation for profane displays of power to wow the mortals, but they won't use one or two of those to keep people paying attention to them? Either they don't exist, or they don't give a shit that we don't believe in them.

Now, as to why people follow some extant religion instead of a dead one, I'm sure a lot goes into that. Surely a lot of people do it because it's what they were brought up with, and it takes a a compelling appeal to get someone to reject what they've always known. Quite possibly that appeal could be made, but for whatever reason the person wasn't exposed to it.

Others find one that speaks to them in the sense that it jibes with the morality they've already developed. For some of these, I suspect they get into the general area and than pick based on convenience. This is especially true of denomination. If a person decides that one Protestant sect "speaks to them," they'll probably find several others that do as well. I know people who started off Methodist but ended up nominally Episcopal or Baptist because the barriers to moving between them are low and by and large you're looking at the same beliefs.

Others do their research, so to speak, and pick based on what they find. Supposedly this is what the leader of the Kievan Rus did, way back when. He sent emissaries to talk to the Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims, and Jews. Jews were out because their religion looked to be on its way to extinction, and there was no pork. Catholic services were described as being too dull for any worthwhile god. Muslims seemed promising until the ban on alcohol was mentioned (this was not something that "jibed with their morality"). The Orthodox had just built or were building the Hagia Sofia (an impressive, not-boring structure) and, if modern history is any indicator, were drunk as shit. So the leader ordered the country baptized and the rest is history.

4/24/2011 9:02:48 PM

Interesting post, but I was purely speaking in logical terms. Why not believe something in particular but believe something else that has the exact same amount of evidence?

The reasons why Christianity is popular in Western Civilization today are interesting, but say nothing about the critical reasons why one *should* or *should not* believe the religious claims themselves. (well, in reality, a full understanding of the history of religion as an entirely man-made construct should itself be a good reason why not to believe the theistic claims, unless your name is aaronburro and you love to entertain the idea that God would create the world in exactly the way that makes it appear he isn't there.)

Quote :

"Because there's nothing else to discuss. You said you could prove something. You haven't. What else do you want? Why do you care about my beliefs? Are you that insecure in your own?"

Because you're playing the ultimate Devil's Advocate but when it comes to actually discussing something your balls shrivel up. You're willing to naysay all but when I ask why you don't believe in something particular you hem and haw. Why? Is your non-belief of Zeus so personal? How about about leprechauns? Will I offend your sensibilities if I ask why you don't believe in them? Or do you believe in them pending evidence to the contrary?

And to give you no excuse besides inane deflection, speak in hypotheticals. Why should a person (not necessarily you) not believe in Zeus but believe in Yahweh or Allah given the evidence supporting each theistic claim?

[Edited on April 24, 2011 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/24/2011 10:07:11 PM

Quote :

"These are gods with a reputation for profane displays of power to wow the mortals, but they won't use one or two of those to keep people paying attention to them? Either they don't exist, or they don't give a shit that we don't believe in them."

Been a while since we've seen any burning bushes or parting rivers or resurrections.

Seems such acts would be helpful in convincing those many billions of unbelieving souls whose endless praise God is supposed to covet.

4/24/2011 11:33:02 PM

Quote :

"Why not believe something in particular but believe something else that has the exact same amount of evidence? "

I think I did a tolerably good job of answering that question (or at least a better one than I expect from aaronburro), but honestly I can't complain if you just want to keep beating him over the head.

Quote :

"Been a while since we've seen any burning bushes or parting rivers or resurrections. "

Certainly. Of course, neither Christianity nor Judaism seems to be on their way out, at least not in the sense that Greek/Roman/Norse religions were quite some time ago. And bear in mind that there are plenty of people who do think they've seen worldly displays of divine power quite recently. It's been a while since anybody even claimed that Zeus did anything for or to them.

Mind you, that's not a reason to believe in any modern religion, but it is a reason why one might believe in one of those and not an extinct one.

[Edited on April 24, 2011 at 11:36 PM. Reason : ]

4/24/2011 11:33:04 PM

do other religious traditions have appearances from holy people or have them appear in wall stains and stuff? just something I've never really heard anything about...

4/24/2011 11:58:55 PM

Belief in a variety of types of miracles are pretty common amongst religious traditions, but I couldn't speak to Jesus-in-the-toast or other apparition types.

4/25/2011 12:28:34 AM

Quote :

"Of course, neither Christianity nor Judaism seems to be on their way out, at least not in the sense that Greek/Roman/Norse religions were quite some time ago."

I don't agree. Extinct religions didn't disappear suddenly; belief gradually became "myth" as knowledge disseminated and rendered the explanations religion sought to provide outright silly. We're now seeing the same thing happen to Christianity and Judaism, but I would argue at an even faster pace. The advent of the (widely accessible) Internet and other resources has made answers a click away. Religion is on the decline in the United States and trend studies confirm this.

God, and especially the institutions devoted to its worship, are not the moral bedrock of society that they used to be. I recently had a discussion with my parents who are Christian (back story or whatever: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=577834). A couple of years ago, they were still heavily involved in church, and my mom worked there as a staff pastor for a long time. They also got involved in prison ministry, which is essentially sponsoring prisoners that are scheduled for release. As time went on, they spent more time volunteering with that and less time actually going to church. I've known for some time that they were thinking about leaving the church, but apparently they've made it official. Keep in mind, this is no small deal - this is the church I grew up in, and most of my parents friends are associated with this church.

Now, I wouldn't say my parents are losing their religion, but in a way, they've started to realize that a lot of what the church does is really just self-serving. A bunch of upper middle class folk crowd into a building once, twice, or three times a week and make themselves feel good. Meanwhile, people in the community actually need help. So much time is spent trying to attain "spiritual growth" that could be spent helping the needy, which is what Jesus talked about. My parents realized they grew more on a personal level by doing something positive for a few hours a week than they had in years of sitting in church.

And, yes, I realize that religion and church are not one and the same. The fact is, though, that you become less religious when there isn't anyone pounding the dogma into your skull every week.

4/25/2011 12:29:09 AM

Damn, and I'd forgotten that your parents were the cornerstone of the entire Christian religion.

You've got an anecdote. Worse still, you've got one that by your own admission is seriously flawed, since your parents haven't even left the religion, just one organization within that religion.

Back up your claim that Christianity is in its death throes with something a little more substantial next time.

4/25/2011 1:04:50 AM

Religion is, as you said, "on its way out" - more and more people are calling themselves non-religious, and fewer people are calling themselves Christian. It's clearly not almost gone or anywhere close to being gone. Don't let me inflame your cognitive dissonance too badly, though.

4/25/2011 1:14:42 AM

Are we to take your word for it? A number of world religions are expanding in size, not contracting.

4/25/2011 1:27:51 AM

In the US, and i suspect every other first world country, organized religion is shrinking.

I could see the bigger ones start to gain an edge in poorer, more uneducated countries.

4/25/2011 1:49:16 AM

Shrinking in what sense?

In the US a number of religious groups have grown. In 1990 ~175,000,000 identified as Christian in the US. In 2000 that number was ~208,000,000.

In the same timeframe we went from having half a million Muslims to having 1.1 million.

I'll grant that people who said "no religion" or some variation also grew in number during the same time frame. But a lot of key religious groups are growing in size in the US.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 2:12 AM. Reason : forgot to cite]

4/25/2011 1:58:35 AM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx

I think it's a qualitative thing rather than quantitative. People (that I know) seem increasingly apathetic toward religion yet unwilling to abandon it. But then, I don't know a representative population of the US...

This link says that the west and south's population grew the most. Perhaps a lot of people being born into or moving into the bible belt contributed to the increase. Using your numbers it looks like it went from 70% to 73% overall - seems higher than I thought it was.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf


[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 7:46 AM. Reason : #s]

4/25/2011 7:18:44 AM

Quote :

"In the US a number of religious groups have grown. In 1990 ~175,000,000 identified as Christian in the US. In 2000 that number was ~208,000,000."

I'm not saying you're wrong...oh wait I am.

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

Quote :

"86% of American adults identified as Christians in 1990 and 76% in 2008."

Number of adults in 2008 that identified as Christian in 2008: 173,402,000

and while we're at it.

Percentage increase of American adults identifying as None/No Religion from 1990->2008: +6.8%

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 8:57 AM. Reason : atheists]

4/25/2011 8:55:35 AM

Quote :

"Of course, neither Christianity nor Judaism seems to be on their way out, at least not in the sense that Greek/Roman/Norse religions were quite some time ago."

I must have misunderstood your point. It seemed to me you were suggesting that the lack of impressive displays of their existence was an indicator that the old Greek gods never really existed (or perhaps ceased to exist around the time that such displays stopped being reported).

Are you saying that the Christian god isn't revealing himself as burning shrubbery anymore because he has a strong following at the moment? That would seem to indicate some regional bias on your part. There are parts of the globe, like India, where hundreds of millions of people do not believe in the Christian god. Shouldn't god, per your logic, be over there dazzling the peasants with his sorcery and revelations?

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 9:08 AM. Reason : ]

4/25/2011 9:08:03 AM