Religion based on rational belief? Then why the geographic variation?

[Voyager]

@ITR champion

Einstein was one of many working on the principles of relativity early in the 20th century; those who study the history of science, including David Bloor and Sal Restivo, have demonstrated this at great length. Darwin was not the only one who knew about evolution at any point, since it was first introduced by the ancient Greeks and was believed by many long before Darwin was born. In fact, even Darwin’s grandfather once wrote a defense of evolution. It’s mighty funny that you furiously accuse me of being “in the outer darkness” and having “ignorance of science”, yet right here you’ve demonstrated beyond any doubt that you know absolutely nothing about the birth of the two most important scientific developments of all history. I’d say that’s about par for an angry, teenage atheist.

So the impact of the 1905 paper was that everyone knew? The problem was hardly new, the solution was. For Darwin, you should have mentioned his grandfather, actually. But natural selection was new (and he though of it before Wallace, even if he didn’t publish until he saw Wallace’s work.

I am an instructor at a top university in a technical field and I’ve published in scientific journals. If I’m “ignorant” as you say, then apparently science hands the pen to ignorant people.

I think I have a degree, a bunch of papers, and some awards over you. You’ve repeatedly shown you don’t understand what others have written, as indicated by responses from all sides of the religious spectrum. I was an instructor for a term 30 years ago when I was in grad school, so I’m hardly impressed.

I cannot stop doing something that I never started doing. (That’s more basic logic.)

So you withdraw your comment about scientists keeping everyone in the dark?

[newcrasher]

@Der Trihs

I’m sure most Christians would love to see me dead; the ones who actually know me just aren’t willing to put themselves at risk.

If you had hung out with me and my Xtian buddies Saturday you would have:

-helped us set up for a presentation on a mission trip to feed orphans in Costa Rica scheduled for Sunday

-gotten your ass handed to you in foozball and basketball

-joined us for a kickass dinner and several bottles of chiante at “Edo’s Squid” (local dive).

-gone to see friends in a play called “God’s Favorite”. Its a funny take on the Book of Job by Neil Simon

-bar hopped and debated various issues over shots and pitchers.

None of us would have wanted to kill you.

Or hurt you.

Or hurt your feelings.

I know of one atheist (my best friend) and one jew who was in the group. There was a guy whose family is from Egypt, but I don’t know if he is apracticing muslim, nor did I ask.

I respect your opinions. Mostly I am sorry that you are justified to feel the way you do because of how Xtians have conducted them selves.

But to say “most” would like to see you dead? C’mon. tell me it was a bit of hyperbole…

[Voyager]

@ITR champion

So here you assert that neither the Catholic Chruch nor any other current religion existed 1,000 years ago. Oddly enough, several other atheists have piled on in this thread to tell me about all the people who do follow religions from 1,000 years ago; either you’re wrong or they are, and I think it’s you.

A lot about the Catholic church has changed in the past 1,000 years, as befitting a religion which adapts to the world and is far from moribund. Protestant religions did not exist 1,000 years ago.
Perhaps you are the type of Protestant who claims to be a member of the one true church, and that Catholics are newbies. (Never got that.)

The only person who’s asserted that a few raids and heresies were worse than the Diaspora and the Holocaust was you. (See post 99) Therefore it seems to me that you should be the one showing it. I realize that atheists have a rather skewed approach to logic, but asking your opponent in a debate to provide evidence backing up your own absurd statement seems rather ridiculous.

You said

@ITR champion

. Does anybody doubt that Christianity has successfully met more societal changes, challenges, and attacks than any other system (religious or secular)?

I doubt it, so does Tom, so does about anyone who knows anything about history. The only way that you could get that I thought that the Viking raids were worse was if you assumed that I bought your idiotic premise. So tell me again how a few Viking raids were worse than the pogroms. And that, if you remember,. was directly tied to the religion of my ancestors, unlike the raids and the Mongol invasion.

[DanBlather]

@ITR champion

I will politely ignore your nasty insults directed at me. However, if you wish to make the claim that I’ve insulted “ethnic and religious groups”, you should be able to back that up. If you can point out where I did so, I’ll apologize for it. If not, you should apologize to me.

You said that Christianity’s dominance and survival is because it is the truth. Therefore the other religions and cultures that have not survived as well (often at the hands of Christians) lost because they did not practice the right religion. This is just a big FU to Jews, not to mention the Aztecs and other native Americans slaughtered by Christians.

Now in response to the rest of your post, let me clarify: when I said “the Church” I mean the Catholic Church, not Christianity as a whole. Everyone knows perfectly well that there have been splits within Christianity. But the debate going on was whether Christianity has held a coherent theology and philosophy together over a great length of time. It has. The duty of a priest today is to run the parish, administer the sacraments, counsel and provide support for the people and assist in other community activities. Those duties are what they have always been.

Now compare that to the government. Of the literally millions of people working for the government today, how many are doing a job that even existed at the founding? Or that existed even a century ago?

So which has changed more?

Nice to have clarified that “The Church” is Roman Catholicism (thanks to the rest of you for playing, see you in purgatory). If that is the case, then there are more practitioners of Islam than there are Roman Catholics. By your logic, Islam must be the one true religion.

I also see that you have changed your claim about The Church ™ . It was:

The governing structure of the Church has changed much less in the past 1,000 years than the governing structure of the United States (for example) has changed in 233 years.

but now you are saying that: "But the debate going on was whether Christianity has held a coherent theology and philosophy together over a great length of time. It has. " and then you go even further to just say that “The duty of a priest today is to run the parish, administer the sacraments, counsel and provide support for the people and assist in other community activities. Those duties are what they have always been.” So at this point I am not sure how to respond. I think it is clear that the governing structure of Christianity has changed more than the U.S. governing structure has, since now less than half of Christians follow the Vatican and many do not recognize any sort of episcopy. It is a tautology to say that those parts of Christianity that have not changed (i.e., “The Church”) have not changed.

[tomndebb]

@ITR champion

I’m saying that Christianity has proven itself to be the most adaptable system, not the only adaptable system.

And you have nitpicked my opening statement while steadfastly ignoring the rest of my point. Please demonstrate that you have sufficient grasp of Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist history to make the claim you did. (Also, stop hiding from the question of Judaism in the context of your claim.)

As to the Vikings, you simply restated what I had already noted while attempting to make it sound like a big deal. Pull out any historical atlas and compare the actual land held by any Vikings in comparison to the breadth of Christian Europe and Asia. Then explain just how a small group of raiders were ever actually a serious threat to an entire continent of people, even if they were able to capture one and a half islands and some seashore property, holding it for fewer than 200 years. (About the same amount of property for a slightly longer period than the Christian invaders into Muslim lands were able to accomplish.) Then note that you are actually talking about martial and political skills that have absolutely nothing to do with the religious faith held by either side. There were simply never enough Scandinavians to ever be a threat to Christian Europe.

Regarding the Mongols, you seem to have an odd view of history. The Mongols threatened Eastern Europe in the 1220s and made a stronger push from 1237 to 1244, then were recalled to the East to attend the funeral of their leader. They never made it farther into Europe than Eastern Austria and never got around to returning–and that portion of Europe that they did destroy did not really rebuild for several hundred years. Your claim that the Muslim lands did not rebuild following the Mongul incursion would come as a pretty big surprise to the Ottoman Empire. And the Mongols never got to Italy (although you may have been confusing some battles they had with extended Venetian trading posts that were rather distant from the Italian peninsula).

[Valteron]

@Thudlow Boink

You’re right, and this is why I was careful to say that some differences are a matter of style, not substance.
I took the liberty of bolding the word where I think you go wrong (i.e. “just”). I fully agree that childhood indoctrination and societal pressure affect what people believe, about religion and about all sorts of other things. But they’re not the sole determiner. Otherwise how do you explain away all the adult converts to one religion from another or from atheism?

I mentioned in my OP that I** do ** admit that there are conversions of adults to and from various religions. And I guess I would have to concede that a voluntary conversion by an adult would indicate that they went through a process of mental reasoning and learning and came to what they feel is a reasonable conclusion. Unless it was one of those things where they suddenly decided they believed in Judaism or Greek Orthodoxy or whatever a month after falling head over heels in love with Goldie or Athena.

But don’t forget the numbers of people converting away from religion towards atheism of general unbelief as well. Religion goes through phases of increasing and declining popularity, but my general impression is that if you look at the long view, over the past 100-200 years, there has generally been an increase in non-belief, a general erosion of church attendance figures, etc.

Now I know I will be asked for cites and I have more to do with my evening than go looking up census results. It is a difficult thing to measure, because some countries, like the US (if I am not mistaken) do not ask about religion on their census. Other countries like Canada do ask about your religion, but the census form has a “no religion” box you can tick off as well.

It is not always easy to know what a “no religion” is. They may be a light agnostic who is willing to go to church once a year at Christmas to keep Mom happy, or they may be an out-and-out atheist, but even an atheist may believe in some “life force” of human love of something.

But one thing I do know is that the “No religion” segment of the Canadian population has grown steadily over the decades and today is at about 20% of the population.

I have also been told that a very large proportion of the Chech Republic is atheist, but I have not checked this out.

[DanBlather]

@Valteron

But don’t forget the numbers of people converting away from religion towards atheism of general unbelief as well. Religion goes through phases of increasing and declining popularity, but my general impression is that if you look at the long view, over the past 100-200 years, there has generally been an increase in non-belief, a general erosion of church attendance figures, etc. …
I have also been told that a very large proportion of the Chech Republic is atheist, but I have not checked this out.

This site suggests that the % of people with no religion is shrinking and Islam is growing. This probably reflects the demographics of the world. Czechs are probably a special case because religion was discouraged under communism.

[Voyager]

@Valteron

But don’t forget the numbers of people converting away from religion towards atheism of general unbelief as well. Religion goes through phases of increasing and declining popularity, but my general impression is that if you look at the long view, over the past 100-200 years, there has generally been an increase in non-belief, a general erosion of church attendance figures, etc.

That may be true, but you’d have to figure in the decline in belief from atheism being somewhat less life and career threatening vs actual changes in belief.

[Valteron]

I just realized I have so many threads going that I have lost track of who sais what to whom.

But I remember Tomndeb asking me about atheism being a capital crime.

The following is taken from Wikipedia, at this article: Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia

Many atheists have experienced persecution, mainly from Christians and Muslims. Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property.
[edit] Historical persecution
During the late Roman Empire, atheism — a capital crime — was a common legal prosecution against Christians by henotheists. Christians rejected the Roman gods, and henotheists rejected the exclusivity of Christian monotheism.

In the European Middle Ages people were persecuted for heresy, especially in countries where the Inquisition was active. Medieval impiety and godlessness were closer to weak atheism than avowed strong atheism, and hardly any expression of strong atheism is known from this period. Medieval beliefs that most closely approach strong atheism were probably held by some members of the pantheistic Brethren of the Free Spirit. A man called Löffler, who was burned in Bern in 1375 for confessing adherence to this movement, is reported to have taunted his executioners that they would not have enough wood to burn “Chance, which rules the world.”

Among those imprisoned for atheism was Denis Diderot (1713–1784), one of the Enlightenment’s most prominent philosophes, and editor-in-chief of the Encyclopédie, which sought to challenge religious (particularly Catholic) dogma: “Reason is to the estimation of the philosophe what grace is to the Christian”, he wrote. “Grace determines the Christian’s action; reason the philosophe’s”. [1]

Once appointed to the Chancellorship of Germany, Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

This article does not mention England, but there is a specific case of an English author (perhaps Marlowe) who feared being denounced as an atheist which was a capital crime in England in the Elizebethan/Shakespeare and later ages. I will try to find the reference. I remember it from one of two books I read last summer, the one about the Reformation and the other a biography of Henry VIII. But I remember quite clearly reading it. I just do not have the books here at hand. They are in my country home. Can anyone else find a reference to the fact that atheism was formerly a capital crime?

[Valteron]

@DanBlather

This site suggests that the % of people with no religion is shrinking and Islam is growing. This probably reflects the demographics of the world. Czechs are probably a special case because religion was discouraged under communism.

The growth of Islam has a lot to do with the birth rate in Muslim countries compared to most of the rest of the world. Check out the number of children per woman of child-bearing age in those countries versus Europe, for example. As you point out, the percentage of people with no religion may be decreasing because of the number of Muslim women who are having large numbers of children.

Communism really does not have that much to do with European atheism. Please see this article in Wikipedia: By the way, you will note that Canada is cited among the countries with higher rates of atheism. It makes a poor Canuck proud, (says Valteron wiping away a patriotic tear).

"Demographics
Main article: Demographics of atheism

The percentage of people in European countries who said in 2005 that they “believe there is a God”.It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Different people interpret “atheist” and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, atheists may not report themselves as such, to prevent suffering from social stigma, discrimination, and persecution in certain regions.

Despite these problems, atheism is known to be relatively common in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, former and present Communist states, and to a lesser extent, the United States. A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious make up about 14.7% of the world’s population, and atheists around 3.8%.[75]

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell finds that all but four reported such a connection, and concludes that “the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.” A survey published in Nature confirms that belief in a personal god or afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[76]

A recent poll (November-December 2006) published in the Financial Times gives more recent rates for the USA and five European countries; this poll shows that Americans are more likely than Europeans to believe in any form of God or Supreme Being (73%). Of the European adults surveyed, Italians are the most likely to express this belief (62%) and, in contrast, the French are the least likely (27%). Indeed, in France, the rate of people who declares to be atheist rises to 32% (and 32 % of agnostics).[77]"

[Oakminster]

@Valteron

Now I know I will be asked for cites and I have more to do with my evening than go looking up census results.

Your contempt for this forum is duly noted. Again. This massive research project required a single google search for “religious growth”. Guess what the very first link was?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Check it out. You might learn something useful to your argument.

[Tamerlane]

@ITR champion

Now on to the Vikings. At their height, Vikings kingdoms controlled almost all of Britain, large chunks of France, and various outposts even deep into the Mediterranean. They may not have been menacing every inch of land in the Christian world, but I don’t see how you can deny that they were a serious threat to Christian Eurpoe. History is a clash of cultures; if Christianity had not had the strength to fight back against Viking incursion, then Viking culture would have settled permanently into those parts of Europe. Instead, Christianity defeated the attackers in some places, converted them in others.

Eh, no, I’m going to have to go with tom. The Vikings were never a serious threat to European Christianity. They were at various times a political threat to individual Christian states. But that’s not the same thing at all.

The Vikings were a.) not numerous and b.) not particularly interested in proselytizing. Indeed they converted readily for political advantage. Like the Germanic migrations that poured over the Roman borders in the 4th and 5th centuries, their eventual absorption into the Christian polity was never really in doubt ( at least in retrospect - I’m sure contemporary chroniclers were a bit more worried ).

The Mongols are an even clearer example. They wiped out large portions of the population wherever they conquered, so one can hardly say they weren’t a serious menace. At various times in history, they conquered into Germany and Italy, and yet every time, Christian civilization met the challenge and threw them back.

The early Mongols were religiously tolerant. Individual Mongols in even the earliest waves converted to Islam, to Christianity, to Buddhism, to Confucianism or else stuck to their ancestral pagan faith without any particular issues whatsoever. It simply wasn’t that significant to their worldview. There was never an issue of them trying to eradicate Christianity ( or any other religion ). Just of subjugating Christian states. Which, again, is an entirely different proposition.

Now Islamic civilization had its Mongol problem too. Twice in fact, Genghis Khan invaded Persia in the 12th century and Tamerlane again late in the 14th century. Islamic civilization survived. But it did not do what Christian civilization did, which is to recover from the Mongol invasions and rebuild itself to its former glory. Therein lies the difference.

Tamerlane ( that other, lesser one ) WAS a Muslim. A rather intolerant, nasty one at that. And I would say the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal states more than rebuilt to “former glory” ( especially as Muslim glory was just a bit down on its luck when the Mongol eruption hit it ). Some areas ( i.e. Khurasan ) probably never fully recovered economically, but that had rather a lot to do with local geography, changing climate and the shift in trading patterns.

I’m sorry, but I do think you are leaping to conclusions based on a weak analysis of incomplete data.

• Tamerlane

[DanBlather]

@Valteron

The growth of Islam has a lot to do with the birth rate in Muslim countries compared to most of the rest of the world. Check out the number of children per woman of child-bearing age in those countries versus Europe, for example. As you point out, the percentage of people with no religion may be decreasing because of the number of Muslim women who are having large numbers of children.[/INDENT]

Yeah, that was what I was trying to say when I mentioned the demographics. It’s kind of scary when the only religion that seems to be even worse than Christianity is growing the fastest. Maybe someday the whole world will be Mormon or Islamic and you won’t be able to get a drink anywhere.

[Valteron]

@DanBlather

Yeah, that was what I was trying to say when I mentioned the demographics. It’s kind of scary when the only religion that seems to be even worse than Christianity is growing the fastest. Maybe someday the whole world will be Mormon or Islamic and you won’t be able to get a drink anywhere.

As you may read on another thread, I am an alcoholic and a member of AA, and I have not touched a drop in 16 years. So the idea of not drinking does not bother me much.

But all the other implications of Islam scare the living shit out of me. As Sam Harris says of Islam in The End of Faith (an excellent book), it is as if a time warp had occurred and people from the 14th century are flooding into the modern world. Do not forget that the incredibly advanced civilizations of Greece and Rome, whose scientists had for example correctly estimated the size of the Earth and Moon and their distance from each other, were overwhelmed by barbarian hordes and the learning of the ancient world lost for centuries. Don’t think it can’t happen again.

Your great grandaughters could someday be stoned by a Muslim mob for having sex out of wedlock.

[Evil_Joe]

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell finds that all but four reported such a connection, and concludes that “the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.” A survey published in Nature confirms that belief in a personal god or afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[76]

I always suspected as much but I never knew someone did an actual study.

[Valteron]

@Oakminster

Your contempt for this forum is duly noted. Again. This massive research project required a single google search for “religious growth”. Guess what the very first link was?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Check it out. You might learn something useful to your argument.

Actually, Oakminister, I really can find cites easier than I let on. See some of my other posts today, and you will see extensive cites. I could have offered you examples of how Thomas Aquinas, whom I did indeed read in University, is considered one of the leading theologians of the Chrsitian Church with his logical and reasoned explanations of why it is reasoable and logical to believe in God.

What I object to is your condescending and bullying way of constantly demanding cites on minor details as if I were your lap-dog. Which is why I mostly ignore your posts.

[DanBlather]

@Valteron

As you may read on another thread, I am an alcoholic and a member of AA, and I have not touched a drop in 16 years. So the idea of not drinking does not bother me much.

Congratulations, that is an accomplishment. Are you a Brit? Over here the substance abuse programs are mostly 12-step with an emphasis on “accepting a higher power”. My son is struggling with addictive behavior and is having a hard time with this part of the 12-step process. How do you deal with it?

[Evil_Joe]

@DanBlather

Congratulations, that is an accomplishment. Are you a Brit? Over here the substance abuse programs are mostly 12-step with an emphasis on “accepting a higher power”. My son is struggling with addictive behavior and is having a hard time with this part of the 12-step process. How do you deal with it?

You might find some good information here.

Is Alcoholism Really a Disease?

Over here they are almost exclusively 12 step as well. I had a very long and hard battle through the 12 step programs and had to finally reject it totally and find something that would actually work for me. Rational Recovery and SMART are good ( IMHO ) alternatives to 12 step programs…

[tomndebb]

@Valteron

I just realized I have so many threads going that I have lost track of who sais what to whom.

Then stop spamming the board with so many parallel threads. Wait until one dies out before you go ripping off a new one.

@Valteron

But I remember Tomndeb asking me about atheism being a capital crime.

The following is taken from Wikipedia, at this article: Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia

Many atheists have experienced persecution, mainly from Christians and Muslims. Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property.

In other words, you’ve got nothin’.

In order:
Romans persecuted Christians for not believing in the right gods and called the crime atheism.
One guy was burned as a heretic (a point I have already acknowledged) because he announced that he was a pantheist and the Wikipedia author decided to throw him in as a “weak atheist.”
Diderot got thrown in prison for three months for being considered a threat to the French authorities for a speculative work with only a vague reference to atheism (as opposed to the more likely offense of anti-Catholicism), at the end of which time he was turned loose to begin work on his Encyclopédie and not bothered again.
Then you get a political act by Hitler (that was probably directed at the avowedly atheist Communists, since Hitler did not actually support any belief except in the most superficial and political manner).

Sorry. I do not see a reference to laws promulgated by Christian countries or by the church that prohibited atheism in that little piece.

[Zoe]

Voyager: People don’t follow religions from 1,000 years ago also. Even if you are a Catholic, lots of things have changed. If you’re not, then you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Christianity began almost 2,000 years ago. Protestants claim that heritage too since the Reformation came about when certain Catholics protested some of the practices that were going on inside their church and wanted specific reforms made.

Luther and humanists who were protesting believed that they were asking for a return to the gospels. I would assume that the Roman Catholic Church believed that they were already in keeping with the gospels.

Although many changes have come about (and continue), it is ignorant to suggest that only the Roman Catholic Church has its roots in the beginning. All of us are branches of the same tree.

Tom: Your argument reads like a recital put together for a Sunday school class rather than an actual scholarly examination of history.

Oh come now. Fight your own ignorance on this one. :rolleyes: