Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

biko

Countries with the best standard of living are turning atheist. That shift offers a glimpse into the world's future.

There's your problem right there. People aren't "turning atheist".
Atheism isn't an alternative to religion, it's the lack of a belief in a deity.
Therefore people don't "convert" or "turn" to atheism, they just don't believe in a god.

But - religion will always be around for several reason:
People can't grasp the emptiness and chaos the university actually is and need to hold on to something.
Poor people need a hope that things will be better in a next life/heaven.
Rich people need poor people not to revolt and the above belief helps this aim.
Charismatic loonies will always attract people that are confused.

prinz

biko wrote: »

There's your problem right there. People aren't "turning atheist".Atheism isn't an alternative to religion, it's the lack of a belief in a deity.Therefore people don't "convert" or "turn" to atheism, they just don't believe in a god..

Indeed. Which is one of the reasons if find groups like the Atheist Alliance slightly puzzling...

biko wrote: »

People can't grasp the emptiness and chaos the university actually is and need to hold on to something...

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

I explained Genesis 1 and 2 to you in a previous thread. I also explained that this view of Genesis predates Young Earth Creationism if we're to look at Aquinas, Origen of Jerusalem and Augustine of Hippo. You can believe that you want, but on a historical level your position isn't accurate.

It just shows me that even when you are presented with good and sound reasons as to why Christians and Jews have understood Genesis 1 and 2 as a poetic text that you prefer to cling to your hobby horse.

You've no interest in knowing what Christianity actually presented from the beginning on this issue.

Your perspective seems to be that you have your presumptions already, and if anyone challenges those presumptions you claim that they are wrong without basis.

http://www.rae.org/FAQ08.htm

In recent years some revisionists have claimed that belief in a young earth and a perspicuous (plain) understanding of Genesis is a new, peculiar, teaching. It is not. Whatever their differences on other matters the great majority of church fathers and Bible-believing Christians have always accepted that Genesis means what it says in teaching a six day creation, a young earth and a global cataclysmic flood.

Modern revisionists such as Hugh Ross teach that most early church leaders believed the days of creation were long periods of time. Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor have researched this question and discovered the opposite is true. Church fathers like Theophilus, Basil, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr and many more all believed the days of Genesis were literal days. (Taylor & Van Bebber) This remained true in later times. For example, David Hall has documented the complete unanimity of opinion on the literal days of Genesis 1 among scholars involved in the Westminster Confessions. (Hall) St. Augustine is notable not because he believed in long creation days (as often, wrongly, claimed) but just the opposite – he believed creation occurred instantly and not in as long as six normal days! (Hall)

It is true that a few early Christians, influenced by pagan philosophy, did not hold literal views of Genesis. This is because they tended to allegorize all of Scripture. The main example is Origen, whose allegorizing also led him to disagree with Christian doctrines in a range of areas from creation to the doctrines of Hell and salvation itself. He is not exactly the sort of person one wants to claim for support if one wants to be considered an orthodox Christian! Even so, Origen has been too eagerly used by men seeking justification for modern revisions of Genesis:

During the twentieth century Origen has been credited with coining the Gap Theory,(1) the Preadamite theory,(2) and the Framework Hypothesis(3) and put forward as a model of how Christians today should interpret Genesis. It is obvious from the contradictory nature of these theories that Origen could not have held all of them at one time. Indeed, he never held any of them… (Bradshaw)

And note that even Origen believed age of the earth was "very much under" 10,000 years old (Origen)! The notion that the days of Genesis were long ages simply does not find support among early Christians. It is a false claim. Until recent times acceptance of a recent creation was overwhelmingly the norm among Christians.

For example, the famous estimate - widely accepted for centuries - of Archbishop Ussher that the world was created in 4004 B.C. was only one of many similar estimations of the age of the earth. Other young earth creationists who published their estimates using similar methodology were scientists like Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton, as well as Martin Luther and the reknowned Hebrew scholar John Lightfoot.

Likewise, the notion of a "local" flood is absent from pre-modern writings (Taylor), because the Bible could hardly be more clear on this point. Genesis 7 repeatedly uses universal terms like all the high mountains covered in water, all life moving upon the face of the earth, to make clear the global extent of what may properly be called the Cataclysm. (Blievernicht) II Peter 3 states that the "whole world perished" from this overflowing of water. There is no textual evidence from the Bible whatsoever that the Cataclysm was less than global. The revisionist claim that the Cataclysm was local or "tranquil" (try saying "tranquil Cataclysm" with a straight face) is based solely on a desire to accommodate the Bible with a naturalistic, uniformitarian worldview held by the "scoffers" of II Peter 3.

Those who do not accept the Scriptures in their ordinary, common meaning, say that "water" is not water but something else; plants and fishes they interpret as they please; the creation of reptiles and wild beasts they explain in their own way, twisting it from the obvious sense as do the interpreters of dreams -- who give whatever meaning they choose to the images seen in sleep. As for me, when I hear the word "grass" I think of grass, and the same with plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal. I take everything in the literal sense, for "I am not ashamed of the Gospel." (Basil)

Therefore let the [pagan] philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed… (Lactantius)

They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe. (John Calvin)

The words one day are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours. (Thomas Aquinas, in Hall)

Compromising scholars at Christian institutions occasionally admit that Genesis is meant to be interpreted literally. Dr. Pattle Pun writes:

It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science [sic], is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils [I would say ‘most’ - EJB] were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith. (Pun)

St. Augustine – "Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past."

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing our race, "Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and as a race, they are immortal." And when they are asked, how, if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their history, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? they reply, that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and that thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though those things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then; but that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander, which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter of chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we believe these documents which, though full of fabulous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass! (Saint Augustine, emphasis mine)

Unbelievers also understand that Genesis means what it says. In my experience they do not respect compromise positions:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science [sic] to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. (Bozarth)

Very little of that is actually Christianity. It's more what people watch in a horror film.

Who is speaking in Exodus? (22)

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.

19 “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal is to be put to death.

20 “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.[

Pushtrak

prinz wrote: »

More to do with greed and power tbh. In many jurisdictions if you accused a woman of being a witch and she was convicted you inherited her estate... which explains why in many instances those burned was witches tended to be successful women.. Dame Alice Kyteler for example, Katherina Henot. Other "witch" cases were no such thing, like Bridget Cleary in Tipperary.

This doesn't explain the interest of a deity in such affairs. Or do you suppose god was equally displeased with successful women? There may be truth in that one.

General Relativity wrote: »

What's your mesuring stick to discern what's ment to be taken poetically, metaphorically and literally in the Bible?

What hasn't been disproven is literal. What has is metaphor.

CrazyRabbit

Well whatever happens, I'm still going to to worship the Sun and Moon Gods (all praise be to them!)

Pushtrak

prinz wrote: »

Indeed. Which is one of the reasons if find groups like the Atheist Alliance slightly puzzling...

You get stamp collectors using stamp collecting as a reason behind political motivations and you'll see people who don't collect stamps getting more active. Fast.

philologos

hooradiation wrote: »

It's just 'poetic', right?
You should go for the Olympics with the level of contortion you're able to pull off with apparently no effort whatsoever.

There's no contortion involved in the position that the Bible explains truth in multiple ways. No matter how much atheists might like to complain about it, I'm more interested in getting to the root of what the Bible is actually doing in Genesis 1 or 2 than satisfying people.

Pushtrak: I'm not going to respond to huge copied and pasted articles. I could do the same to you, by simply googling Christian website and pasting responses. I'm interested in an actual discussion rather than a copy-pasta war.

I've explained to you clearly in this post, and in this post why I believe what I do. I'm more than happy for you to present your own argument, but I'm not interested in wasting my time responding to copy-paste efforts.

Duggy747

I pray to God that Atheism wins :pac:

prinz

Huffington Post doing a bit of fence sitting?

Day 1: 46% of Americans believe in Creationism..... abortions for some!

Day 2: Atheists to defeat religion..................miniture American flags for others!

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

There's no contortion involved in the position that the Bible explains truth in multiple ways. No matter how much atheists might like to complain about it, I'm more interested in getting to the root of what the Bible is actually doing in Genesis 1 or 2 than satisfying people.

Pushtrak: I'm not going to respond to huge copied and pasted articles. I could do the same to you, by simply googling Christian website and pasting responses. I'm interested in an actual discussion rather than a copy-pasta war.

I've explained to you clearly in this post, and in this post why I believe what I do. I'm more than happy for you to present your own argument, but I'm not interested in wasting my time responding to copy-paste efforts.

Ok, then. Your assumption that biblical literalism is a new thing is unfounded. And if you care for the evidence, I've already provided it.

Pushtrak

prinz wrote: »

Huffington Post doing a bit of fence sitting?

Day 1: 46% of Americans believe in Creationism..... abortions for some!

Day 2: Atheists to defeat religion..................miniture American flags for others!

You do realise one is talking about the current, and one is positing about the future. And that there is a difference.

prinz

Pushtrak wrote: »

You do realise one is talking about the current, and one is positing about the future. And that there is a difference.

I love brick.

flutterflye

Nah, maybe in the western world, but not everywhere.

I'm not altogether sure that I'd like to see an end to religion.
I think that religion plays a massive role in containing society, and acts as a reason to obey societal laws for some.

Pushtrak

flutterflye wrote: »

I think that religion plays a massive role in containing society, and acts as a reason to obey societal laws for some.

That is a very valid point. The "no morals without god" line of reasoning is actually something I find scary when religious people bring it up. It is damning. But on those who say it. Well, when spoken in the context especially of why not do X if you don't believe type discussions.

Daniel S

smash wrote: »

Well I'm pretty sure we've stopped burning witched and staking vampires...

Speak for yourself, Smash...

philologos

Copying and pasting an article from a Young Earth Creationist website counts as "evidence"? Really? - Most of the people cited that article postdate Origen of Jerusalem, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. I concede to you that there are a few people in there that I didn't know about.

I'd need to check up what's in the article, but even if it was all accurate and true. It still doesn't undermine the view that people regarded Creation as a longer process long long long before Charles Darwin. Which means that skeptics can't realistically accuse my position of having emerged after the 19th century.

Zebra3

The RC church has been exposed as nothing more than a money making scam run by a bunch of child rapists and their protectors, yet still people line their kids up to join.

Religion ain't going anywhere folks.

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

I explained Genesis 1 and 2 to you in a previous thread. I also explained that this view of Genesis predates Young Earth Creationism if we're to look at Aquinas, Origen of Jerusalem and Augustine of Hippo. You can believe that you want, but on a historical level your position isn't accurate.

It just shows me that even when you are presented with good and sound reasons as to why Christians and Jews have understood Genesis 1 and 2 as a poetic text that you prefer to cling to your hobby horse.

You've no interest in knowing what Christianity actually presented from the beginning on this issue.

Your perspective seems to be that you have your presumptions already, and if anyone challenges those presumptions you claim that they are wrong without basis.

Oh and by the by, I agree that the Jewish law does refer to the paranormal. What I don't agree with is this:


Very little of that is actually Christianity. It's more what people watch in a horror film.

'Witches' were burned at the stake, along with heretics by the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

A few early modern scientists were accused of heresy by the Catholic Church. Giordano Bruno, who believed that the universe contained numerous suns, planets, and worlds similar to Earth, and that other such worlds could contain sentient beings, was condemned as a heretic by the Church and burned at the stake by secular authorities.

'Witches' are still burned/ mutilated in parts of Africa where people are uneducated, ignorant and believe in the supernatural. How people in the Western world, with access to information can still believe this stuff, is beyond me.

BTW, China is a good spot for spreading evangelical christianity since they're slaves in a communist country. Churches always pray on the poorest, lowest, desperate people of the world.

Fish in a barrel.

philologos

General Relativity wrote: »

What's your mesuring stick to discern what's ment to be taken poetically, metaphorically and literally in the Bible?

Good common sense. Much as I would be able to read any other text, and from it's linguistic context determine whether or not something is written as poetry, or as history, or as moral law.

Luckily most books in the Bible clearly mention their intention. The prophetic books clearly mention that they are prophesy. The gospels clearly mention that they are gospels. The historical books of the Old Testament clearly mention that they are historical books writing about kings. The wisdom books such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are mentioned as wisdom. We have a number of tools that we can use to better understand Biblical texts, such as looking into the history of the time in which they were written, to looking at a concordance to get a better idea of what's going on in the Greek and Hebrew. Even tools such as looking at the basic structuring or grammar of the passage. Of course, for the Christian there is more. The Christian can be assured that since God inspired the Bible as His word, we can ask Him for help and guidance in reading it.

Thankfully the Bible is quite clear in its intention, and for a book of its age, we have so many manuscripts to help translators to present it to us in clear English. Other ancient books such as Aristotle's Metaphysics (which I studied at university) don't even tell us where they begin, or where they end.

shizz

If people want to believe in a creator, that's fine. I personally believe there is no evidence for it but it's a persons choice to look at the evidence and draw a conclusion.

What I do have a problem with is organised religion and long for it to be put behind us as something we clung on to in our species infancy.

guitarzero

I'm an atheist. I could not give a f*ck if people are religious. I dont know why atheists get so bothered. There are so many bigger issues in the world than people gathering at a mosque, kneeling in a church or even picketing against homosexuals in Tennessee.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Copying and pasting an article from a Young Earth Creationist website counts as "evidence"? Really? - Most of the people cited that article postdate Origen of Jerusalem, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. I concede to you that there are a few people in there that I didn't know about.

Lets look back at the post that started it. You posted:

I also explained that this view of Genesis predates Young Earth Creationism if we're to look at Aquinas, Origen of Jerusalem and Augustine of Hippo.

You can't discount the contradictory evidence presented. Lets look at them one after the other:

Thomas Aquinas wrote:

The words one day are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours.

St. Augustine is notable not because he believed in long creation days (as often, wrongly, claimed) but just the opposite – he believed creation occurred instantly and not in as long as six normal days! (Hall)

Origen, it seems was unlikely to be taken too seriously for a lot of his views:

The main example is Origen, whose allegorizing also led him to disagree with Christian doctrines in a range of areas from creation to the doctrines of Hell and salvation itself. He is not exactly the sort of person one wants to claim for support if one wants to be considered an orthodox Christian! Even so, Origen has been too eagerly used by men seeking justification for modern revisions of Genesis:

During the twentieth century Origen has been credited with coining the Gap Theory,(1) the Preadamite theory,(2) and the Framework Hypothesis(3) and put forward as a model of how Christians today should interpret Genesis. It is obvious from the contradictory nature of these theories that Origen could not have held all of them at one time. Indeed, he never held any of them… (Bradshaw)

And note that even Origen believed age of the earth was "very much under" 10,000 years old (Origen)! The notion that the days of Genesis were long ages simply does not find support among early Christians. It is a false claim. Until recent times acceptance of a recent creation was overwhelmingly the norm among Christians.

Augustine wrote:

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

You present people to back up your claim. They do no such thing. It is irrelevant about whether others predate or post date your examples when your examples don't demonstrate what you say they do. Or, as is the case of Origen, was liked enough to have an anathema against him.

philologos

Pushtrak: If you're going to cite you should at least let people know where you're citing from. I'm happy to look into what you're saying, but to say the least you're not really helping me to do this

shizz

guitarzero wrote: »

I'm an atheist. I could not give a f*ck if people are religious. I dont know why atheists get so bothered. There are so many bigger issues in the world than people gathering at a mosque, kneeling in a church or even picketing against homosexuals in Tennessee.

It's all well and good if they don't harm or endanger anyone, but the reality is that religion has the power to influence people to do evil and it has happened many times before.

hooradiation

philologos wrote: »

There's no contortion involved in the position that the Bible explains truth in multiple ways. No matter how much atheists might like to complain about it, I'm more interested in getting to the root of what the Bible is actually doing in Genesis 1 or 2 than satisfying people.

Gotcha - The bible is literal, except when it isn't.
Good to know.


(also, fyi - not an atheist, i just hate bullshit.)

guitarzero

shizz wrote: »

It's all well and good if they don't harm or endanger anyone, but the reality is that religion has the power to influence people to do evil and it has happened many times before.

Yep, we should probably ban money too.

prinz

shizz wrote: »

It's all well and good if they don't harm or endanger anyone, but the reality is that religion has the power to influence people to do evil and it has happened many times before.

Let's do away with politics too! Hurray.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Pushtrak: If you're going to cite you should at least let people know where you're citing from. I'm happy to look into what you're saying, but to say the least you're not really helping me to do this

That is from the same source I already cited. That the information is new to you shows you didn't even read it. Thanks for that.

philologos

hooradiation wrote: »

Gotcha - The bible is literal, except when it isn't.
Good to know.


(also, fyi - not an atheist, i just hate bullshit.)

It seems like you're not going to even let me explain anything to you. So what's the point?

You do know that the Bible's made up of a number of different books, written by different authors and in different genres? Therefore, it makes sense that there are different styles of writing in there.

Pushtrak wrote: »

That is from the same source I already cited. That the information is new to you shows you didn't even read it. Thanks for that.

So on the basis of one website? - I think it's probably a bit more wise to do a bit more research, and particularly on websites that aren't biased towards Young Earth Creationism.

As I've said already, we could do this by copy and pasting random websites on the internet, or we could discuss it. Which do you want to do?

smash

philologos, it's nice to see that you're ignoring the facts put forward to you regarding the link between Christianity and witches/vampires etc even though you disputed it earlier.