No, since all the facts and logic are on my side. It isn’t my view that violates every law of physics. Nor am I claiming that a bunch of primitives 2000+ years ago knew more than modern science does. Nor are my beliefs logical incoherent. And so on.
The basis of my “truth” is everything science has learned about the world, and reason. Christianity is in complete opposition to both.
You aren’t giving me much to work with here. Just standard “atheists are stupid” spam, with no actual arguments or claims to debate.
Be as sure as you like, but it still isn’t true. As I pointed out in this thread, there are plenty of examples in which more education has correlated positively with conversion to Christianity, and in which the most educated groups in a particulary country have been the most likely to convert. The survey article referenced in that thread, by Laurence Iannaccone, can be found here. As Iannaccone says:
It’s clear why atheists want to believe that more education and science lead to less religion. But it isn’t true, and it’s particularly untrue in the case of Christianity. In reality it seems like it’s the atheists who should be glancing nervously at the worldwide rise in education and realizing that their time is limited.
The Chinese guy I work with is an accomplished curser, he does it in both Chinese, English and Danish. When he curses in English it’s often something to do with Jesus (either that or fuck or something to do with fish and female genitals which I suspect is a translation from Chinese), which is rather funny since he isn’t Christian. Without religion we’d loose a great source of curses – we’d still have fuck though and the fish thing.
Since Christianity is not just wrong but utterly ridiculous we should do no such thing. If an education program tends to make people more Christian, then it isn’t likely to be a very good one; that is the mark of a program that teaches lies in the hopes of producing just that result. Believing Christianity is foolish and ignorant, and it isn’t a mark of a good education system when it produces ignorant people who believe foolishness.
And of course, you just have to pretend that Christianity is somehow more plausible than all the other equally baseless religions out there.
It’s actually pretty liberating. It’s also not a belief.
It’s pretty easy. What was it like before you were born? That’s what it’s like.
It is fallacious, in any cas, to try to argue that because you don’t like the idea that death is the end that therefore there must be a magic fairlyland you can go to when you die. Sorry, dude. It’s not goingto happen. Consciousness resides entirely in the brain. It’s all just chemicals. When the brain is dead, consciousness ceases. Those are the physical facts of consciousness. Everything else is just wishful thinking.
You need to stop making pronouncements about what atheists “want” all the time. I don’t personally give a shit how many sky fairies you want to worship. It is true, though, that education correlates highly with a lack of superstitious beliefs.
My guess is that Christianity – unlike most other major religions – makes a specific claim about future events.
It’s no more ironic than posting a question on this board asking “When will the English language have changed so much that it will no longer be English?”
If the Indian nation is eliminated, Hinduism will be effectively dead.
Actually, Dio, extremely liberating. I’d recommend it for those that haven’t tried.
The plural of anecdote is not data, nor a cite, but for what it’s worth, I was taught the same thing as a child by the Pentecostal church I attended at the time.
I’ve heard that too, from some of the tongue-talking types down south. They think that aliens are really demons (though I’m not sure if they think they really live on other planets. My impression was that they thought people routinely mistook demons for aliens). These are the same kind of people who think that God put dinosaur bones on the earth to “test us,” and who believe all internet glurge is fact. Not critical thinkers.
Yeah, those are the type. There’s a northern strain, I can unfortunately attest to.
To answer the OP: never. I think that the number of believers in Christianity and religions in general will begin to fall at an ever increasing rate, especially as education across the world increases, and the “gaps” that gods explain become smaller and smaller, to the point of nonexistence. At the very least, you’ll have many people who call themselves religious but don’t take it very seriously: a whole generation of C&E Christians and their other religion equivalents. But a core group will always remain. There is too much scholarship, too much power, and too many people invested in the continuance of Christianity, or any other nation spanning religion.
I agree with you, that the basis upon falsifiability or not has little bearing on whether religion will exist or not, but it’s not really the point I was going after. Rather, I think religion is valid as long as it gives answers that are meaningful to those asking the questions. It starts being wrong when those answers are no longer satisfying to the population at large.
As I said, I see science and religion as orthogonal disciplines. In my opinion, attempting to use science to prove or disprove a religious concept is as futile as attempting to use religion to explain a scientific concept.
I tend to view religious concepts to be those questions that cannot be examined in a meaningful way through science. “Why?” is often something that science cannot answer. Science is excellent at telling us “How?”. Religions is just the opposite, where it can give us meaningful answers to “Why?”, but it’s “How?” is often pointless.
Morality is also something that science cannot answer. Yes, it can be used to objectively analyze how particular behaviors affect a particular moral goal, like the needs of the many over the needs of the few, or rational self-interest. Science can tell us how to maximize a particular goal, but it can’t tell us in any meaningful way which goal is the correct goal to choose.
This is where religious concepts come into play, and no, it doesn’t even require invoking a god (as Buddhism doesn’t). Instead, religion can take these particular moral goals and examine them and attempt to explain which one to follow and why. Sure, for some religions this basicaly boils down to “God said do this, because God said so.” and that is satisfying to some people, where it isn’t to others. Another common one boils down to the old golden rule.
The thing is, and I think this is where the impass occurs, is that science knows that there is a single absolute answer that explains a particular phenomenon, and as our knowledge increases, we do a better and better job at modelling it. Religion, on the other hand, there isn’t necessarily a single best answer, and the important part is the pursuit, rather than the actual answer itself. I think even a lot of very religious people look at a particular set of beliefs, like Christianity, as an absolute answer and they stop asking questions and stop learning and growing; that is the exact opposite of the purpose of religion in my eyes.
In my opinion, it is a fundamental question that eventually everyone will seek an answer to. Just because your answer to it is that question is that we have no purpose doesn’t mean that that answer is satisfactory to everyone else, nor does it even mean that it is the correct answer. Hell, I know plenty of people who are atheists, and have settled upon a different answer to that question than you have.
The reason you don’t see or understand the methodology that others use to answer the question, it seems, is because you are attempting to apply the scientific method to a non-scientific discipline, and as long as people continue to approach religion in such a manner, we’ll continue to have this impass. Personally, I think your answer is fine, and it’s equally as valid as mine, but yours isn’t satisfying to me, just as I’m sure mine probably isn’t satisfying to you. In fact, my answer isn’t even satisfying to me, but it’s the most satisfying of anything I’ve come across yet, and I search nearly on a daily basis to refine my answer to be more and more satisfying.
The thing is, I think that if we ever consider these sorts of questions settled, as a species, we’ve utterly lost our curiousity, and the very thing that makes us human. The very same curiousity that drives us to understand how the universe works, gravity, relativity, etc. is the very same curiousity that makes us wonder why we’re here, how we should behave, how we should treat eachother.
I think it’s clear now from what I’ve said, but I think it gives some pretty clear answers of why we’re here, how we should behave morally, etc. Again, you may not find those answers satisfying, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean they’re not answers to those questions.
Again, religion isn’t about finding a definitive provable answer, because I don’t think there is one. And evaluating those answers scientifically makes about as much sense as trying to use science to decide what the best genre of music is, what the prettiest color is, what the best tasting food is. Religion is almost entirely experiential, and you’ll have as much luck proving to someone what the correct answers are to the questions it seeks to answer as you will of convincing everyone of a definitive answer to any of those other questions.
And whenever it’s discussed, it’s discussed as a monolith. Just like all the crazy Islamophobes are foolish to evaluate Islam as a monolithic religion sharing identical beliefs and goals, it’s just as foolish to evaluate Christianity on those same premises.
As long as you approach Christianity, or any religion for that matter, with that sort of approach, it’s difficult to take any views you have of it seriously. I, for instance, consider myself Christian, but I have a lot of views that vary from the mainstream ideas. In fact, it is precisely these variances that have resulted from my own evaluations of the facts.
This simply isn’t true. Yes, many religious people believe things that are disproven, and many deny reality, but not all of them. When I have been challenged on my beliefs, and shown to be wrong, I have reevaluated them. However, when you approach religion with an absolute certainty that it must be wrong, you have entered with the same fervor and unwillingness to be wrong of which you accuse the religious of being.
Religion is a necessary consequence of our curiousity. We seek answers to basic questions, some of which have obvious factual answers, like gravity, biology, etc, and some of which cannot be answered through examination of facts and rely heavily on experience, philosophy, and even preference for answers. Until such a time comes that we no longer are anything beyond purely our intellects, religion will always exist, but once we are nothing more than our intellects, we also cease to be human.
Maybe you should look up the definition of religion. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Can you give an example of something that can be more meaningfully examined by religion than science?
Actually, science tells us “why” all the time. Can you give an example of religion telling us anything at all?
Incorrect. Science can explain morality perfectly well. We’ve had several threads on the biologically evolved nature of human “morality.” We are a social species, and all social species have some kind of hardwired "morality.
Religion, on the other hand, has never given us any explanation at all about it.
This has nothing to do with how science explains morality.
How so?
What does the Golden Rule explain?
That’s good, because religion does not appear to have any kind of methodology in place to discover any answers.
This is not a fundamental question, it’s just a question based on a common fallacy, and everybody doesn’t seek an answer to it. I don’t. I don’t believe the question is sensible since I don’t believe I have a reason to believe that my existence requires a “why.” Even if it did, religion offers no methodology for answering the “why.”
I don’t have an answer to the question. I’m saying that the question itself is based on a completely baseless premise. It seeks a solution to a problem we have no reason to believe exists. It’s like asking "how do unicorns fly? First prove that unicorns fly, then we’ll worry about how to explain it (through science).
It doesn’t matter if they’re satisfied. They still have to show a reason that the question needs to be asked at all. Why does there have to be a “why?”
I haven’t given an answer to the question. I’m saying the question is based on a groundless premise in the first place.
I haven’t given an anser, and however your atheists friends answer this completely unnecessary question does not alter the fact that the question is based on a groundless premise.
What methodology? Give me an example of this methodology. I haven’t misunderstood or failed to see anything because you haven’t given any examples of it.
In what way is religion an investigatory discipline? Please give a specific example of a specifuc religious methodology for discovering an answer to something
What questions, and by what means does religion answer them, other than by fiat?
Can you show that there has to be a “why?” hy waste time trying to answer a question we have no reason to believe needs to be asked or has any answer?
Heh. When has religion ever come close to answering that? As it stands, our naturally evolved biology and brain chemistry controls those facets of our behavior functionally well enough without religion. All religion ever does is culturally encode “morality” which we are already born with anyway.
Just out of curiosity, though, by what means would religion discover this information if we weren’t already born with it?
I’m asking what methodology religion uses to answer them.
Can it find anything at all?
Science is perfectly applicable to all of these questions. Religion is applicable to none that I’ve ever seen.
In that case, it’s utterly worthless and answers nothing. Not even to the person doing the experiencing.
This is what we have philosophy for, and philosophy and science get along just fine together. Philosophers give an answer to these questions, and give arguments as to why their answers are the correct ones. As you say, religion boils down to the claim that the one true answer comes from god.
Since philosophy makes no claims about the natural world (not since Galileo, at least) it takes information about the world that is needed from science. When it tried to do science, back in Greek times, it got most stuff wrong, and even the stuff it got right was by accident. For religion to take moral guidance from God, it must demonstrate that God exists. You can’t logically claim that adultery is a sin because god said so and thus should be punished while saying god’s existence is a matter of faith. (I hope you can see why, if not I’ll expand the argument.) Religion typically has justified the existence of god through historical and scientific arguments. The conflict arises because secular history and science have demolished all of these. Some types of religion have denied science, some have eliminated the moral certainty, and some, like Catholicism, seem confused. They are advanced enough to not deny the science, but then create elaborate justifications for things like the non-existence of Adam and Eve.
So, the conflict comes from the fact that religion without factual evidence for god becomes another branch of philosophy, and philosophy has not done a good job of packing them in Sunday morning or getting lawmakers to toe the line.
It’s hardly futile; science has disproven innumerable religious ideas. Your claim is nothing but a fallback position; religion has been driven back and back by science. The whole idea that religion supposedly speaks only on subjects that science doesn’t is nothing but a reaction to this, an attempt to pretend that the fact that religion is never proven right is actually some kind of virtue.
It isn’t even a true claim about what religion does, since plenty of religious people still make pronouncements about scientific matters like evolution, no matter how blatantly wrong they are.
Religion can’t give “meaningful answers” to anything; it is empty. It is intellectually sterile, it answers nothing, it produces nothing but empty assertions.
Neither can religion. On the contrary, religion corrupts; it makes moral behavior more difficult. Science at least can give you more facts by which to make your moral judgments; religion just gives you lies, and basing your judgment on lies means that you’ll only be right by accident.
On the contrary, that is much of the purpose of religion. To intellectually stunt people, and to maintain and spread itself. The other major purpose is to serve as an excuse and defense for stupidity and evil; when people have a stupid or vile idea they don’t want to give up, they just slap the religion label on it and demand it be respected because it is religious. A large reason why religion is without worth, is because that’s where people put all their worthless ideas.
Nonsense, religion is opposed to curiosity. A religion declares the truth to be what it says it is, and forbids actually finding out the real truth.
No, all of them do, or they wouldn’t be religious. That’s why it’s called “faith”; religion is about pretending that your fantasy is reality. Ideological solipsism.
Again, no; religion is the death of curiosity, it is the substitution of fantasy for reality, the death of the intellect.
Actually, I suspect that it would just intensify it, if only because it would be exotic and interesting, as opposed to the thousands of thin women around post fat-loss pill.
“Legitimate human needs”? Like what? Prostitution isn’t factually wrong, after all, you really had sex with an actual person. The two really aren’t much alike. Religion is more like a pyramid scheme or other forms of fraud; delusional and parasitic, with at most a few people at the top benefiting.
Shodan’s assumption of dishonesty was uncharitable. Der referred to various sects, but made a claim only about what he was told – he did not say nor I believe imply that any sect had an official position on this.
That said, google “are ufos demons” for a boatload of links on the subject. They vindicate the plausibility of Der’s anecdote.
Although I haven’t had time to give Iannaccone’s article a thorough reading, it should be noted that he focuses almost entirely on the United States. Other parts of the world see different correlations. Additionally, since the article was published in 1998, religiosity in the US has in fact begun to come down (after a long period of stability), cf. Religion | Gallup Historical Trends.
As far as education correlating positively with religion in other parts of the world, that doesn’t necessarily imply an absolutely positive causal relationship – it may be the case, for example, that education and religiosity have something like a parabolic relationship.
