Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

philologos

smash wrote: »

See, education half worked.

There's plenty of reasons, but I've still yet to ever meet one who take the bible literally like you do. Mostly they just live their lives by the cherry picked ethics thought in the bible.

Maybe you like sci-fi and fantasy? Maybe you have a hole in your life that you need filled? You tell us...

You know that that's actually quite condescending . For the record, I'm educated to degree level at university, and I work in a job (software development) that requires my logical faculties to be used on a daily basis.

There's good reason to believe that the Bible was written as non-fiction. There's no good argument to suggest that the Bible was clearly written as a fictional text. That leaves us with two conclusions, either it is just so spectacularly wrong, or it is so right that it deserves our attention. I believe the latter, you believe the former, that's what's up for discussion.

Duggys Housemate

hooradiation wrote: »

The important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both.
Well done.

I know, but how hard would it be to feel superior to most posts in this thread.

This is actually an interesting topic which has nothing to do with your beliefs on religion. anyway, I started a thread in politics.

joseph brand

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Have you learned nothing from A+A. I'm actually beginning to think you're a little bit disturbed.

It's akin to talking to a scientologist, or someone who makes a living off peddling superstitions to anyone who will listen.

Both are hard nuts to crack.

MisterEpicurus

af_thefragile wrote: »

Doesn't matter what you call it the majority of the world lives by it. And for some people its all they've got. Not everyone lives in comfortable 1st world societies.

Also faith is quie different from wishful thinking. Faith is a strong internal believe which is why its strong and whether you believe in God or not a lot have been written and spoken about the power of positive thinking.

Erm, yes it does matter. It's always important to expose the ridiculous beliefs of other people.

As for saying that mostly poor people have faith. I think that's actually a point against your own position because you're implying those that are ignorant and poor are more likely to hold faith.
Isn't that the whole point of this thread, to show that an increased economic outlook will increase atheism?

As for differentiating between faith and wishful thinking. Well, I'm glad you concede that it's a total absence of evidence. And faith is most likely to be attributed to things we can't have or control on Earth, like seeing relatives, so I think they're very linked.

smash

philologos wrote: »

You know that that's actually quite condescending . For the record, I'm educated to degree level at university, and I work in a job (software development) that requires my logical faculties to be used on a daily basis.

Software development requires you to do your job using rules and equations. Reading and believing the bible requires you to turn your brain off.

philologos wrote: »

There's good reason to believe that the Bible was written as non-fiction. There's no good argument to suggest that the Bible was clearly written as a fictional text.

You mean apart from the fact that any miracles mentioned could never possible ever happen? Or that there were talking snakes and bushes? Or that we are all a product to Adam and Eve? :eek:

philologos wrote: »

That leaves us with two conclusions, either it is just so spectacularly wrong, or it is so right that it deserves our attention. I believe the latter, you believe the former, that's what's up for discussion.

You see I believe there can only be one logical conclusion because logically the bible is complete rubbish.

Pushtrak

It is, of course, worth bringing up the contradictions.

af_thefragile

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Erm, yes it does matter. It's always important to expose the ridiculous beliefs of other people.

As for saying that mostly poor people have faith. I think that's actually a point against your own position because you're implying those that are ignorant and poor are more likely to hold faith.
Isn't that the whole point of this thread, to show that an increased economic outlook will increase atheism?

As for differentiating between faith and wishful thinking. Well, I'm glad you concede that it's a total absence of evidence. And faith is most likely to be attributed to things we can't have or control on Earth, like seeing relatives, so I think they're very linked.

I'm not debating who is right or wrong here. If i wanted to debate that i'ld go to the religion forum. I'm saying faith is something that cannot be easily wiped out of people's minds and atheists underestimate its significance in the lives of people who have faith.

flutterflye

Dempsey wrote: »

Science & Technology is the new religion

What sort of nonsense is that?
Your post makes no sense.
Or was it supposed to be funny or something?

prinz

Which side will Yoda be on?

MisterEpicurus

philologos wrote: »

That leaves us with two conclusions, either it is just so spectacularly wrong, or it is so right that it deserves our attention. I believe the latter, you believe the former, that's what's up for discussion.

Here's the dilemma though. If it were to be spectacularly true then the least you would expect is some form of conclusive evidence. But we don't have anything close to conclusive evidence! Indeed, we have almost no evidence. All we have is contradictory anecdotes and retrospectively fitted prophecies. Even the Jews, who were 'dying' for a Messiah, thought he was fake.

God apparently appeared in a tribal and ignorant district of the world, not at a time when people could record evidence in conclusive form. All the Christian God had to do was place a gigantic unexplainable untouchable edifice which appeared from nowhere and is indestructible and on this edifice was written the moral laws and so forth. Then everybody would have evidence because it would still be around today.

But we have nothing! Not a scintilla of evidence! You'd surely expect if God appeared, we'd have something to go on...but alas, we don't.

I never understood this whole 'faith' business anyway. In essence, God appears, but not so much so that his followers will not know he was here but have 'faith' he may have appeared, and the more faith the better? Bizarre plan to enter the world to say the very least.

Pushtrak

flutterflye wrote: »

What sort of nonsense is that?
Your post makes no sense.
Or was it supposed to be funny or something?

You aren't doing your
.......2
e=mc right. You now have to juggle 5 apples. Ramen.

Dempsey

flutterflye wrote: »

What sort of nonsense is that?
Your post makes no sense.
Or was it supposed to be funny or something?

Google "religion", get a definition of it and maybe then you can understand what I am saying.

krudler

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.

give your own history of posting articles with clear agendas and presenting them as truth (see any gay marriage thread) the ironing of this is delicious.

Duggys Housemate

Are we back on topic, yet? No? Lol

Pushtrak

Dempsey wrote: »

Google "religion", get a definition of it and maybe then you can understand what I am saying.

Did that. First hit, Wiki: "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

So, no.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Are we back on topic, yet? No? Lol

Didn't you say you opened this in politics?

flutterflye

Dempsey wrote: »

Google "religion", get a definition of it and maybe then you can understand what I am saying.

Uh huh - did that.
What am I supposed to be seeing exactly?
I don't see anything at all that deciphers your post in a manner that makes sense.
It was just a stupid comment as far as I can tell.

Zebra3

EnterNow wrote: »

Ancient gods/goddesses have come & gone, there's no reason to believe current ones won't either.

Most of them were just rebranded. Pagan gods and goddesses became patron saints. Much like Christmas is just a rebranded version of the old pagan midwinter gargling session.

philologos wrote: »

There's good reason to believe that the Bible was written as non-fiction. There's no good argument to suggest that the Bible was clearly written as a fictional text. That leaves us with two conclusions, either it is just so spectacularly wrong, or it is so right that it deserves our attention. I believe the latter, you believe the former, that's what's up for discussion.

The bible was written down long after it had been handed down from one generation to the next by mouth.

Purple monkey dishwasher and all that.

philologos

Zebra3 wrote: »

The bible was written down long after it had been handed down from one generation to the next by mouth.

Purple monkey dishwasher and all that.

Except, there is a lot more evidence to say that isn't actually true, and none to say that it is true. See the link in my last post.

You might want the Bible to be a game of Chinese Whispers, but there's good reason why we can say that isn't true.

Duggys Housemate

Hey, anybody think that the huffington post is being a bit optimistic?

smash

philologos wrote: »

Except, there is a lot more evidence to say that isn't actually true, and none to say that it is true. See the link in my last post.

The only evidence to say it's not fiction, is because the bible says so? Come on...

Duggys Housemate

Is it true that economic growth causes secularism, or just a cherry picking of stats?

What does everybody else think?!!!?

Zebra3

philologos wrote: »

Except, there is a lot more evidence to say that isn't actually true, and none to say that it is true. See the link in my last post.

You might want the Bible to be a game of Chinese Whispers, but there's good reason why we can say that isn't true.

Of course. :rolleyes: Then there's all the gospels that the Church left out because it didn't suit the agenda of their day.

And with regard to the NT, Jesus spoke Aramaic, but it was first put into print in Koine Greek. I'm sure nothing was lost in translation. :rolleyes:

Duggys Housemate

What about immigration, does that affect the argument?

What does everybody else think?!!!?

Dempsey

Pushtrak wrote: »

Did that. First hit, Wiki: "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

So, no.

Didn't you say you opened this in politics?

Is that the only acceptable definition of religion? No

flutterflye wrote: »

Uh huh - did that.
What am I supposed to be seeing exactly?
I don't see anything at all that deciphers your post in a manner that makes sense.
It was just a stupid comment as far as I can tell.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

Science couldnt possibly fall under this widely accepted definition!

krudler

smash wrote: »

The only evidence to say it's not fiction, is because the bible says so? Come on...

this always make me laugh, what evidence?

krudler

Zebra3 wrote: »

Of course. :rolleyes: Then there's all the gospels that the Church left out because it didn't suit the agenda of their day.

And with regard to the NT, Jesus spoke Aramaic, but it was first put into print in Koine Greek. I'm sure nothing was lost in translation. :rolleyes:

blessed are the cheesemakers indeed

Duggys Housemate

Zebra3 wrote: »

Of course. :rolleyes: Then there's all the gospels that the Church left out because it didn't suit the agenda of their day.

And with regard to the NT, Jesus spoke Aramaic, but it was first put into print in Koine Greek. I'm sure nothing was lost in translation. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: So, is religious belief affected by economic growth or not.

What do you think??!!!!


We need to pen people in the atheism, and Christianity forums. Let them out only if they agree to on topic posting.

This thread should be about a sociological question with regard to religion, and economic growth. Its not about the bible. Or Jesus. Or literal fate. There are dozens of threads in the crazy peoples forums for that.

Here we have one set of idiots arguing with another about whether the bible is exactly true or not. it isn't, so jog on and get back on topic, or get back to your sandbox.

smash

krudler wrote: »

blessed are the cheesemakers indeed

Follow the gourd!!!!!

Nothingbetter2d

krudler wrote: »

blessed are the cheesemakers indeed

blessed are the meek... for they shall inherit the earth


so where are these so called meek?

Pushtrak

Genesis 1:25-27 Compared to Genesis 2:

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
---
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Wants us to be saved?

1 Timothy 2
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Proverbs 16
4 The Lord works out everything to its proper end —
even the wicked for a day of disaster.

John 12
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”

Romans 9
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

There are a lot more contradictions than these. I already linked it once... Here it is again.

Dempsey wrote: »

Is that the only acceptable definition of religion? No

You did say to google it, and I posted here with what was forthcoming.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

Science couldnt possibly fall under this widely accepted definition!

Science, or the scientific method is about evidence and repeating things with observation and understanding reality. Not beliefs. Not dogma. If you think science is a religion you just don't understand science.