Read the article, not just the title. It has the data you requested, broken down between Catholic and Protestant (plus “no religion”).
5% of people with “no religion” think it’s the actual word of God. I guess that gives us a clue about the accuracy of polls. 
“without a religious affiliation” does not necessarily equal “atheist”.
ETA: I didn’t get from that article that “actual word of God” necessarily means “all of the stories are literally true.” But I could be wrong.
Whose definition? And, if it matters, I’m agnostic, mainly because I figure some extra-universal entity could have farted/burped/snapped his fingers to start the Big Bang. That entity would (loosely) be defined as god. Of course, I don’t believe that there’s much reason to believe that that entity has shown any interest in us since then, or that he wants to be worshiped.
I would expect that people who think that the Christian Bible is the Word of God would call themselves Christians. But clearly 5% don’t, or didn’t understand the question. What this means is we can’t take the results too literally; they may not mean exactly what we think they mean.
Right – it’s a valid distinction. I’ve seen other polls that treat literalism and the numbers are similar. cite.
Actually, the question in that survey was
However, I can’t find the wording for the question on religious affiliation. It quite possible that the 5% isn’t as contradictory as I originally thought. For example, the choices might be “Catholic, Protestant, No Religion”. If so, a lot of people wouldn’t know how to answer. I expect better from Gallup, though.
Actually I do find it hard to believe, since I’ve been discussing religion on-line for nearly 40 years and haven’t heard many rational justifications yet. Liberal came closest, giving proofs of God’s existence, but even those did not justify his Christianity. Mostly it has been what you see here - appeals to pure belief and appeals to personal experience. Fundamentalists don’t last long in the places I’ve been involved with (like they don’t last long here) so actually I haven’t seen that view yet.
I know all the traditional rationalizations and proofs of god, and I know the very convincing refutations of them.
You’ll have noticed the large number of deists we have here. That may not be a rational belief, but at least it is not an irrational one.
And I of course did not talk about a literal interpretation, but rather how one would choose which interpretation to use and which parts to accept. No one has ever been able to explain this to me, and I doubt anyone will, since we get such differing interpretations. Being Jewish I am aware of, though haven’t read, the massive amounts of interpretation and discussion and argument and reinterpretation. I’ve never been taught that there is one answer, but we don’t try to enforce our non-answer on others.
So I’d be happy to hear a rational defense that can stand up to analysis. But please be sure to define God first, or else we get into things like the Problem of Evil not applying to an uncaring God.
I certainly agree with this. Yet I was surprised, not long ago, chatting with a bloke, who holds that a typical murder is, in fact, infinitely harmful. It cuts off all possible futures that the victim might have experienced, and the sum of all of those possibilities is infinite.
I still don’t agree…but it was an interesting differing point of view.
As do I, except I don’t find them to be “very convincing refutations”.
You can think of nothing you read where you yourself make decisions on what to believe and what not to? None of the aforementioned refutations were more convincing or less convincing to you, you simply read them, took them at face value, and made no judgment on how they fit into your entire worldview? You don’t find some arguments more compelling than others based on your own education, experience, and reason? Because, in a very tiny nutshell, that’s what a majority of people do with the Bible.
You’ve been doing these kinds of discussions online for 40 years (that’s quite the internet you got there!), I highly doubt I could offer you anything you haven’t heard already in another form. Just as I’ve been having these kinds of discussions for a bit less than that, and there is nothing you could offer that I haven’t heard already in another form. It wouldn’t be ground breaking in the least, and neither of us is going to be convinced one way or the other. Such is life.
Which has just what to do with this discussion or with the reference to Augustine?
The OP is stealing my stolen lines - I hope God punishes you!
According to one of the Bible writers, Jesus is quoted that he only came for the lost sheep of Israel, one never hears the passages that disagee with some beliefs.
The fact that Augustine was just another human like you or me, and not an authority.
Actually, no. They had no knowledge of what death might be, seeing as how they were susceptible to it. They also could not that this was a bad thing as they had no knowledge of good and evil UNTIL they had eaten from the tree. Their god set them up to fail by presenting them with something were not equipped to understand - and then he allowed the serpent into the garden on top of that.
Since the sum of all possibilities is 1 (not infinity), the guy’s math fails. More specifically, the sum of the possibility of each outcome times the probability of that outcome is 1. An infinite number of possibilities, with infinitesimal probabilities for each.
As I said, either the math is bad, or the ethics is indefensible. In this case it’s the math.
Good, please choose one. Here is one of my favorites - the cosmological argument.
First, we now know that not all things have causes, and that this breaks down at the quantum level. Second, even if we granted that there is a prime mover, there is nothing to connect this prime mover to any human conception of God. It might be a deistic god, it might be the god of another race far off in another galaxy, it might be a grad student in another brane. All we know is that the creation stories supposedly inspired by all deities of human religions got creation totally wrong.
First, I never claim that the decisions I make while reading are correct, and if they involve reality in any sense, I test them against information from outside the book. Second, what you are describing makes the Bible no different from Lord of the Rings or Star Trek. You can get a lot of insight from them, and other books, but no one is dumb enough to give a percentage of their salary for someone to preside at weekly ST fan meetings. And no one is trying to ask for money from Congress to build a warp drive, which is still more rational than creationism. And we don’t have “In Kirk we Trust” on our money.
I started on PLATO long before there was an internet. But my point is that I haven’t heard a lot of tries at defending god. Around here we have the random person who pops in from a church group sure he can teaching the skeptics a lesson, and who vanishes when he hears arguments his preacher never told him about. We have our deists. We have some believers who just don’t want to talk about it. We have some believers based on experiences. We have some believers who reject the notion that there are significant number of the religious who are nuts or who try to restrict the rights of others. That’s the “no one at my church is a creationist argument.” And we have lots of believers who when someone says that belief is irrational respond by saying “how dare you call me irrational!” I was in alt.atheism when the Invisible Pink Unicorn was born, and I know the reason it was created, and even today people get very irate when it is mentioned.
What I haven’t heard is anyone giving a logical argument buttressed by evidence from history about why the god they believe in exists. The reason I’m still looking is that it astounds me that so many people believe in something with so little justification. It’s “I can’t believe that those Aztecs or Cargo Cultists or Babylonians believed in such weird things. Let’s go take communion.”
Why? While I appreciate the thought that somehow my genius will be the one to overcome your previous views and convince you, I’m not convinced I would be be adding anything you haven’t heard in those 40 years of discussions on this topic you’ve been having.
Great, so do I. I test the things I read in the Bible against information from outside the Bible as well.
I get that you have an obvious axe to grind against organized religion and its role in the US. And I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. But there is, to me, a huge gap between “there’s too much religion in the political realm” and “I can’t fathom how someone can pick and choose parts of the Bible”.
I’m happy for you.
I completely understand that you don’t think there are any logical arguments for the belief in the existence of a god. I’m also confident from your online resume, that I can not convince you otherwise. The only point I was trying to make was that your seeming confusion over how anyone could interpret the Bible other than literally seemed to ignore how anyone interprets anything that is written. That’s all.
Well, you seem like an intelligent person who has put some thought into this and who could clearly describe the arguments. But if you don’t want to you don’t want to.
I have nothing against organized religion per se. My early religious experiences were pretty much totally positive, and I became an atheist for intellectual, not emotional, reasons. There are many ministers who do a lot more good for the community for a lot less pay than your average basketball player.
But I think I see your misunderstanding of my position. I’m not concerned whether people interpret the Bible and choose certain parts to believe and certain parts to reject - I’m curious about the algorithm used. I’m also curious about how they justify in believing part X that depends on part Y when they reject part Y.
For instance, Christians believe that we all must be saved because of Adam and Eve’s sin. (God making us sinful doesn’t work for a merciful God, and Adam and Eve supposedly had free will.) Yet rational Christians reject the Adam and Eve story. We all agree it is a myth. Must we be saved because of a myth? Not to pick on Christians - I got circumcised because of a myth also.
BTW, I do not reject the existence of logical arguments for God. There are plenty of logical arguments which are incorrect due to faulty premises, not faulty logic. I just gave an example in my last post.
I guess this is why criticism of the New Atheism books is based on the authors are mean and shrill or the passages where the authors talk against the fundamentalist types, and none of my friends are those people. Reviewers usually skip over the arguments against mainstream religion. tsk
I appreciate that. I respect your history on this board and your views enough to know that any discussion would be repetitive and unconvincing, so I can’t quite muster up the willpower to go through that when it’s been done before, and better, by so many other people.
I’m also against organized basketball players.
Then I misunderstood you when you said: “Actually I do find it hard to believe, since I’ve been discussing religion on-line for nearly 40 years and haven’t heard many rational justifications yet” in response to my post that was: “Do you find it so hard to believe that some theists can arrive at their belief not through literal interpretation of the Bible, but rather through research into secondary writings of philosophers, theologists, and scientists; as well the application of reason and rationality?” I took the fact that you found it hard to believe (given your research into the topic), to mean you were concerned about how to interpret the Bible.
See, I take that part as simply a story that enlightens us by pointing out that humanity is flawed. I have no problem seeing that the Adam and Eve story is just a myth, but using it as an illustration that humanity is flawed, and thus imperfect. Personally, I don’t think that it necessarily a matter of being “saved”, but that’s just me and I’m not the best representative of Christianity out there. But nor do I think that the Bible has nothing to teach us or that we cannot interpret the stories and rules contained in the Bible to be guidelines in living our lives.
Heck, even if you leave out the requirement for multiplying by the probability, it doesn’t add up to infinity. There are, say, 3 billion women the (male) victim might have married, and they might have had, who knows, any of 100 billion possible kids from each pairing. It still isn’t infinite! Nothing, ever, possibly can be.
I only mentioned it because, as obvious as it ought to be, there are those out there who don’t believe it.
Not so much. We’ve had lots of problem of evil discussions, but those are just refutations of a very particular type of god.
We both are combining two very different questions. The first is God’s existence. Most of the logical arguments don’t appeal to the Bible at all. In the Bible stories, at least in the Torah, it is not an issue since God is a very evident presence. One doesn’t need a lot of philosophical arguments if the Red Sea just got parted. And I’m open to arguments for a God who has nothing to do with the Bible. The question of, given one believes in some of the Bible, which parts to believe in, is very different. Actually you don’t have to believe at all, but then you use standard historical methods of text evaluation, and you probably come up with something which won’t please believers.
And that is a moderate Christian version of the deistic argument, in a sense. I certainly can’t argue with it, and I can see lots of good reasons for it, very few of which are based on the Bible. More on humanity, I’d say.