Why Religion Is Winning

AbsoluteTruth
Theist
AbsoluteTruth's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-09-25
User is offlineOffline
Why Religion Is Winning

Many secular humanists – mostly in America – are pondering as to why there are so many religious people – preferably Christians. They claim that religion is an irrational, unviable, and illogical position to hold. As you will see, by just comparing an atheistic/secularist worldview to a theistic worldview you can blatantly tell the overwhelming difference. Why are there so many religious?

As Dinish D'Souza puts it; “In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You are a purely biological entity, different only in degree but not in kind from a microbe, virus, or amoeba. You have no essence beyond your body, and at death you will cease to exist entirely. In short, you came from nothing and you are going nowhere.” In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image; with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He has a perfect plan for your life. In addition, God gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with Him. If you are willing to accept the gift of salvation, you can become a child of God.”

Now imagine two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribes to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper, and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

Now don’t confuse the purpose of this topic. This isn't the reason as to why I am personally a theist - specifically Christian.  I’m not pushing that religion is correct due to the comparisons and the number of people devoted to it; I’m only showing why there are so many religious people here in America, and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Me

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Me GOD,  is 100% material, there is nothing other. That is my belief, call it religion if you must ... All is ONE , PERIOD.  There is no idol, no master. I AM GOD and fuck you who deny me, and yourselves ! .... LOL RRS. I love you all , especially you god wise atheists. Me god, is atheist, no religion , no master, no beginning.

deludedgod wrote:
So, what precisely does he mean?

  I mean I am science, I am ligusictics, I am all there is, I am god, I have no master, no religion, I am the eternal. RRS rocks. Thanks, really .... 

It is one thing to say you are an individual, but I do not agree that you  "I am god as you" are on the same page. I merely think you are stuck in a "kumbia" mode that everybody wants the same thing, but no matter how much natural biology and evolution may agree, you coddle superstition over natural reality by placating utipian fiction.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"Precise" ? Go science, the

"Precise" ? Go science, the study of what we are , G-O-D ....  


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
You lost me there Brian37,

You lost me there Brian37, ???

"utipian fiction", says I , you and everything is not god, but my god definition says all is one. Fuck that utopian religious fiction .... Zero appeasment, no to placating.   Please say again ?


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Vastet

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Moral absolutes do not exist

-Are you absolutely sure?

Hi again! Wow quite a few people responded to the original post. I was wondering if you may have missed my questions ( or perhaps I missed your answer) here they are again: 

"Moral absolutes? Can you post your definition of what those are?

AND

How do Christian theists Defend moral absolutes? What do they cite to do this?"

Thanks!

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Here we go again.

Quote:
1) The earth only appears to be special
 

-H2O could be almost as far as mars and still be a liquid. Water can be found on many different celestial bodies in just our own solar system. 

-Simply with the laws of chance, there are an almost infinite number of planets in the universe that are similar in size and position to our own.

Quote:
3) Our self importance is imagined

-Life adapts to the environment. Some simple forms of life do not need oxygen. When oxygen became abundant, organisms evolved to utilize this resource. If oxygen had not been present, there is no reason why life could not have evolved without it.

-Life does not NEED gravity. Life does not NEED water. Life does not NEED oxygen. Life does not NEED the weak nuclear force. etc. etc. etc.

Quote:
4)Our planet is a lonely speck in a vast universe, seemingly mediocre or unspectacular

The farthest star that scientists have observed was about 13.7 billion light years away. For any young Earth Creationists, that means the light from that star had to travel for about 13.7 billion years to reach Earth.

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
It goes beyond science to make statements that science itself does not.

Why? Why are these statements unsupported by science? What does science say?

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
Is it really still credible to maintain that we aren't really unusual in the universe?

Yes.

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
Just because someone is an illogical thinker and holds a position does not make them wrong!
They're not wrong because they're illogical. (thanks for admitting they're illogical.  Just kidding) They're wrong because that's where the evidence seems to lead.

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
"Historical evidence moves us a long way towards demonstrating our belief; as a result, the faith that is necessary to fill in the remaining gap is reasonable."

There is virtually no objective evidence for Christianity or any religion. To even imply that you only have "gaps" left to fill is ludicrous.

Also, 'the faith that is necessary to fill in the remaining gap is reasonable?'

 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Why, I wonder, do theists

Why, I wonder, do theists always simply ignore difficult questions? Well, that's a retorical question itself since I'm fairly sure I know the answer - they don't have any answers, only assertions.

This discussion has been a case in point.

 

A person comes to the messageboard and, as an opening remark, posits an argument which hinges on his assessment of the comparitive worthlessness of atheism compared to theism. This assessment is summed up with the following assertion:

"Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

To which Renee Obsidianwords makes the pertinent rejoinder "This would infer that an atheist isn't moral" and asks of the person who made the assertion "Define moral, without citing the bible."
 

By way of a response (though of course it doesn't even pretend to anwer her actual request) she gets this assertion in reply.

"The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory."

Which, sounding like it's a serious charge, merits Renee's immediate follow-up questions "Moral absolutes? Can you post your definition of what those are?" and "How do Christian theists Defend moral absolutes? What do they cite to do this?"
 

To which she gets no answer at all.

But that doesn't mean that her correspondent is simply hoping everyone forgets he ever made the assertion. Later, when another correspondent states logically "Moral absolutes do not exist" he is immediately countered by the person who brought them up with the interrogative;

"Are you absolutely sure?"

So, it seems he is willing to back up his assertion after all. Reasonably, Renee asks again just what this assertion actually means simply by repeating her earlier unanswered queries; "Moral absolutes? Can you post your definition of what those are?" and "How do Christian theists Defend moral absolutes? What do they cite to do this?"
 

We're still waiting. In fact we're still waiting for an answer to Renee's very first query regarding how the theist defines "moral" at all, let alone "moral absolutes".

 

When will theists ever learn that unfounded assertions expressed with force, while being terribly impressive and convincing to impressionable minds encouraged never to think rationally, simply reveal the asserter to be the blustering deluded victim of indoctrination he is to anyone who prioritises logic and reality over superstition and fantasy?

In this case of course it simply means that the OP has lost his argument, if he ever even had one. If an argument is contingent on an assertion that is apparently so unproveable that even its originator abandons it almost as soon as it has come out of his mouth, then it was obviously wrong.

And so is he.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Hear hear Nordmann.I seem to

Hear hear Nordmann.

I seem to remember that you have said you are originally from Ireland, but that you live on Norway (or was it Sweden) now. Is that correct?

Because I'd like to know if you've ever brought up the point that I did in post #44 in this thread, I'll just cite the ending:

Quote:
If atheism is so fundementally un-viable to maintain the human condition, without people falling prey to their own existential angst, then how come people don't seem at all bothered here in Scandinavia?

And if you have brought it up, have you ever gotten a reply from a theist, and what were they?

 

 

P.S: This was basically a shameless act of self-promotion of my post #44, but I am still waiting for an answer, so I felt like bumping it here.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Hi Nikolaj I've never

Hi Nikolaj

 

I've never brought it up since to be honest I don't regard Norway as an atheist state - far from it, though religion is thankfully in decline - and my experience of Sweden and Denmark is insufficient to speak authoritatively regarding the state of play there. You do it better.

 

But you did ask a good question and directed it to someone whose assertions contradict your experience so they at least should have the decency to respond, whatever about apologising for making claims which exceed their ability to back them up.

 

Personally I think he's blown whatever chance he had of being taken seriously and knows it - hence the silence when asked to justify his assertions. Which is not to say he won't be back with even more assertions (that's what they tend to do), but don't hold your breath waiting for answers (I assume poor Renee has already keeled over blue-faced under the kitchen table waiting for answers to hers).

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and also, to our OP.A

Oh, and also, to our OP.

A question so simple I forgot to even ask it in the first place.

What makes you think religion is winning?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:Oh, and also,

Nikolaj wrote:

Oh, and also, to our OP.

A question so simple I forgot to even ask it in the first place.

What makes you think religion is winning?

Hi Nikolaj,

I had wondered about the OP statement as well upon first reading.

Half way through my answer to it, it occurred to me that the OP intent of the "religion is winning" phrase, might not be meshing with what I thought he meant. But I finished my answer anyway.

Now that I've had more than just a couple of minutes to reflect/answer, I can say that my original feeling about the question may have been wrong. I was assuming by 'winning' he essentially meant that religion has been more popular than atheism since, well... either the dawn of time or the dawn of religion v sciences....take your pick. I would say the latter though, as I think when the first humans became aware enough to comprehend existence it was likely they were Atheists, and religion developed shortly thereafter...much as the fact that we are all born Atheists until we are taught or learn otherwise.

Now let me qualify by saying that religion "winning", in a strictly popular sense, would not include those regions of the world where religions, by determination of the powers that be, have no opportunity to "play the game" to begin with.

So by my accounting, religion where freely available, so to speak, is winning in the sense that there are more theists than Atheists. Yes, over the last few years I have looked up the information but no I'm not here to begin hunting down and providing sources to back my accounting.... my laziness and lack of time prevents that anytime soon.

Let me state what I've said indirectly before: 

Winning is a temporary state and there are valid reasons to think that Atheism is gaining ground in this, for lack of a better term, "contest". 

If I was wrong about the OP's intended meaning of that phrase, then I would ask him to clarify further so I can answer directly to said meaning.

 

 


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth

Also, I would ask Absolute to further explain this single sentence...

 

AbsoluteTruth wrote:
I’m not pushing that religion is correct due to the comparisons and the number of people devoted to it; I’m only showing why there are so many religious people here in America, and in the world in general... you can’t blame them.
 

Seemingly, there is mild contradiction within.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:-Let's take a look a

Quote:

-Let's take a look a few assumptions Sagan makes:

1) The earth only appears to be special

Incorrect. Sagan is implying that because the Earth is so special to us (See: Pale Blue Dot), it instill the illusion of divine creation for us. The illusion quickly dissipates once we awaken to the fact that the Earth is a very humble speck against the bastion of the universe, in no particularly special place, and is quite vulnerable.

We have nowhere else to call home at present, and for a world and universe supposedly designed just for us, this seems like a rather poor set-up.

 

Quote:
2) It's uniqueness is accidental and a delusion

This is the same statement as the one you just made.

 

Quote:
3) Our self importance is imagined

Correct. How could it not be? There are billions upon billion of stars and worlds in the great expanse of the universe; humanity, on the scale of the cosmos, amounts to - effectively - nothing. Life on Earth has only been around for a few hundred million years - humans far less than that. Merely retreat as far out as our nearest planetary neighbor and our entire civilization becomes invisible against the scale of it's environment.

Right now, as far as the universe would be concerned, we are inconsequential. Perhaps some day we'll be something more - but it'll be science carrying us to such a height, not your precious deity.

Quote:
4)Our planet is a lonely speck in a vast universe, seemingly mediocre or unspectacular

...Why you felt the need to repeat yourself three times is rather vexxing.

Quote:
But this is philosophical naturalism NOT science. It goes beyond science to make statements that science itself does not.

Gibberish. By 'philosophical naturalism' I presume you mean 'materialism'? And if so, yes, this is the domain of science. As has been repeated a few hundred times by now, science strictly deals with what is natural and what is material. It does not entertain you fantasies about 'immaterial' things because such things could never be tested, and are not properly defined.

Quote:
Science cannot preclude the possiblity of purpose or a divine intellect.

Correct. And neither can any intellectually honest person.

Quote:
The question though is are Sagans implications correct? We've learned a great deal about the universe; the nature of stars and the complex set of circumstances that allow for life on earth. Is it really still credible to maintain that we aren't really unusual in the universe?

You're repeating yourself again. Sagan did not imply that we were not, in some ways, unique to our region of the galaxy. He was illustrating that our vision of ourselves as a divine creation was nonsense.

Quote:
Sagan believed there was literally millions of contemporary civilizations

FALSE. Sagan speculated that perhaps the process by which life arises and evolves is commonplace enough that there could be millions of technical civilizations. He did not 'literally believe' that this must be the case - he simply suggested that the possibility should not be discarded out of hand. Moreover, we do not yet have enough data about the universe to conclusively call such a speculation incorrect; do you know what a 'light year' is? Are you aware that our galaxy alone is roughly 100.000 light years across and roughly 1,000 light years deep?

We have no idea what lies in most of that space - even of what fractions of it we can observe, we're in many cases looking into the distant past. A million civilizations as industrialized as ours would indeed be very easy fellows to miss in that tremendous vastness.

Quote:
but of course as even he admitted that goes beyond any available evidence. You wonder why I laugh at the irreligious. You can't take the religious seriously, yet you can take Carl Sagan and his philisophical implications seriously? Sorry.

...And do you want to know why I chuckle at theists like yourself? Even your writing is trapped by your taboos.

I've noticed your extraordinary reluctance to use the word 'atheist', as though as little as typing the word yourself might light a fire under your deity's ass. What wrong, abs? So fearful of burning forever and ever that even your own vocabulary must make some sacrifice to your censorship?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    My caring sharing dad

    My caring sharing dad was a Carl Sagan "preacher", explaining such things as the speed of light and seeing the distant past as we gaze at the stars. I've neglected to add these two short videos as signatures under all my rrs posts.

Thanks again "buddha" Kevin ....  

Carl Sagan - "Pale Blue Dot" , 3 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M


"Wisdom of the Buddha" , 8 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsb-woP3jI


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Why religion is

Why religion is winning?,

 

From where I live religion is not only losing it is in fact lost. The war is over rationality and the enlightment won. Gay rights is more of a political force than religious rights. Sure America is a few years behind but catching up.

Being a politican who admits to being religious is a bit like saying I'm a part time paedophile it just isnt a vote winner at least in the UK

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10597
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Vastet

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Moral absolutes do not exist

-Are you absolutely sure?

Yes I am. Now prove me wrong. Until you do, this thread gaining so many new posts makes no sense since I stopped it, and you, cold.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I know he's going to say

I know he's going to say that you are saying it's a moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist - which would be a contradicion. However, it's not a moral absolute, it's a factual absolute that they don't exist - just like it's a factual (not moral) absolute that human beings can't survive without a functioning brain (though Christians can easily cause you to doubt this. )

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10597
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I know

MattShizzle wrote:

I know he's going to say that you are saying it's a moral absolute that moral absolutes don't exist - which would be a contradicion. However, it's not a moral absolute, it's a factual absolute that they don't exist - just like it's a factual (not moral) absolute that human beings can't survive without a functioning brain (though Christians can easily cause you to doubt this. )

*laughs loudly, people in library stare, feels embarrassed*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:-Let's

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

-Let's take a look a few assumptions Sagan makes:

1) The earth only appears to be special

2) It's uniqueness is accidental and a delusion

3) Our self importance is imagined

4)Our planet is a lonely speck in a vast universe, seemingly mediocre or unspectacular.

Dude, have a little perspective:

YakkoWackoAndDot wrote:

Everybody lives on a street in a city or a village or a town, for what it's worth,

and we're all inside a country which is part of a continent, that sits upon the planet known as Earth.

And the Earth is a ball filled with oceans and some gasses which is out there spinning silently in space,

and living on the Earth are the plants and the animals, and also the entire human race.

 

It's a great, big universe, and we're all really puny,

we're just tiny little specs, about the size of Mickey Rooney.

It's big and black and inky, and we are small and dinky,

it's a big universe, and we're not.

 

And we're of a vast interplanetary system stretching seven hundred billion miles long,

with nine planets and a sun, we think the Earth's the only one, that has life on it - although we could be wrong.

Across the interstellar void are a million asteroids, including meteors, and Halley's Comet, too,

and there's over fifty moons, floating out there like balloons, in a panoramic trillion-mile view!

 

And still it's all a speck amidst a hundred million stars, in a galaxy we call The Milky Way

It's sixty thousand trillion miles from one end to the other, and still it's just a fraction of the way:

cause there's a hundred million galaxies that stretch across the sky, filled with constellations, planets, moons and stars...

and still the universe extends, to a place that never ends, which is maybe all inside a little jar!

 

It's a great, big universe, and we're all really puny,

we're just tiny little specs, about the size of Mickey Rooney.

Though we're not sure how we got here, we're an important part here,

it's a big universe, and it's ours.

 

Our important in the universe is to ourselves.  Obviously, our 'self-importance' isn't imagined, without ourselves, we wouldn't be here! It's our absolute importance that's an illusion. On a cosmic scale, we are of less consequence than even the smallest, shortest-lived star.

Why does insignificance offend the theist ego so?

Why does death become something be denied?

Fight to survive, to live as much of your life as you can, because it's all you'll have. Death should be the motivator for us to do something with ourselves, not hug ourselves tightly and say 'there there, it'll all be ok'. It won't be ok: YER GONNA DIE. And that should be your reason to waste not one single moment, because once gone, they can never be replaced, and you will never get more.

 

Quote:

-I take your statement to be offensive and inaccurate. Are there unintelligent, illogical, irrational thinking Christians? Yes. Are there unintelligent, illogical, irrational thinking Atheists? Yes. Just because someone is an illogical thinker and holds a position does not make them wrong! Are these Christians still living in the “Bronze Age:”?

Dr. William Lane Craig
Dr. Gary Habermas
Dr. Norman Geisler
Dr. Ravi Zacharias

Etc., you get the point.

Theologically, yes. They're still working very hard to tell themselves that all the things they've denied themselves in life weren't pointless, that they'll see all their desires fulfilled in Heaven. It's hogwash. If you deny yourself something in this life, you should do it for good reasons, like not wanting to hurt someone else, or not wanting to be unhealthy, or not wanting to go to prison. Deny yourself what you must because it's the right thing to do, and then... and this is the important bit: Let it go.

Don't regret it. Don't beat yourself up over it. The past is the past. Be aware of it, but also be aware that nothing you can ever do will change what was done. Just factor in the consequences of what happened into the decisions you make from now on.

Be you. Live, and live now. If God made all this for you, then it's even more important. I've said it many times over, but I'll keep saying it: the theist insistence on 'heaven' or an immortal afterlife strikes me, from the position that God exists, not as naive obviously... but as horribly, horribly obnoxious.

If God made this world for you, gave this life to you... how dare you tell your God that that's not good enough? How dare you desire more?

Live. Live now. If you're very, very lucky... this world is all there is.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Am I the only one who keeps

Am I the only one who keeps reading the thread title as: "Why Religion is Whining"?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Am I the

JillSwift wrote:

Am I the only one who keeps reading the thread title as: "Why Religion is Whining"?

No, you're not!  I'm disappointed every time I see the first post or reread the thread title.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Now

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Now imagine two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribes to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper, and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?

The problem with your argument is that you've drastically oversimplified (actually, you didn't even describe) the world these tribes are living in. Allow me to expand on your scenario so that it more closely resembles our world.

The secular tribe's members may not be sure why they exist, but they know that they do exist. And they know they exist on a planet that has finite resources. They also know that their actions have consequences (in your argument you said this of the religious tribe, and then implied the secular tribe didn't understand actions of consequences...I see no reason why the secular tribe wouldn't understand actions and consequences). So the secular tribe members tend to base their decisions on as much information as possible.

The secular tribe believes there is a god driving their actions. While the secular tribe's members also understand that actions have consequences, they believe that whatever decision they make - regardless of available information - must be the right one. That's the dangerous thing about religion. The assumption that one's decision is correct because of the alleged existence of a god.

Do I blame people for resorting to religion? Not at all. It's much easier to assume that there is a god in charge of everything. And it's much easier to stick your head in the sand that it is to make a difficult decision.

 

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Geirj, I believe you

Geirj, I believe you miswrote a few times and put secular where you meant to put theistic.  Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  In this particular thread we all live in secular societies, with people both theist and Atheist.  I would have AbsoluteTruth contrsuct a new scenario with terms he understands.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Geirj, I

Thomathy wrote:

Geirj, I believe you miswrote a few times and put secular where you meant to put theistic.  Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  In this particular thread we all live in secular societies, with people both theist and Atheist.  I would have AbsoluteTruth contrsuct a new scenario with terms he understands.

Entirely possible. I was exhausted when I made that post. Hopefully people know what I was getting at.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


zothique
Posts: 9
Joined: 2008-10-07
User is offlineOffline
Religion is not winning. 

Religion is not winning.  It's been getting curbstomped back to the Bronze Age for the last 500 years.

Not only is it losing the war, but it has been unable to win any single factual engagement. The arguments put forth by religion-- every last sorry stinking one of them-- are founded on utter fallacy.  They amount to constant dancing and retrograde actions trying to direct attention away from the fact that theists have zero proof of their asinine claims.

 

Quote:
The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.

If this were true, one would expect the proportionate christian population in prison to be less than that of atheists, again proportionate to the population.  Instead, while 75% of the US is christian, and 75% of the prison population is also christian, only .2% of the prison population is atheist while atheists represent 10% of the general population in the United States.

One would expect that since the United States has the highest proportion of christians of any country, there would be less crime and violence here.  In fact, the United States has by far the highest murder rate of any country in the world.

So the implication of the Argument from Morality is that christians need an imaginary friend in order to prevent them from stealing and killing.  This utilitarian argument seems to tacitly presuppose that god may not exist: "well, even if he is imaginary, it's better to be religious because if we weren't religious we would raping people in the streets."

This is an extremely disturbing commentary on the TRUE morals of christians, as they see themselves.

It's also interesting that with all these moral absolutes, the christian church has made such an organized effort to defend so many pedophiles.

Since theists seem to place more validity in cracked logic than in genuine logic, here's a fallacy for you: Pedophilia is the most repugnant crime in our society, and pedophilia seems to be disproportionately represented in the christian priesthood.  Therefore, christianity must actually damage the morals of its adherents.  Right?


jmdixon79 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
This is just

This is just infuriating

 

"Now imagine two groups of people – let’s call them the secular tribe and the religious tribe – who subscribes to these two worldviews. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper, and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every though and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all. Should you be surprised then to see that religion is winning?"

To Ass ume that just because we have mentally evolved past the fear of being alone, and from being controlled that we have no purpose or drive.  Because we don't ned someone to tell us how to live or that we are ok in our own little way, like we need to get on the short bus.  I am sure why I exist TO LIVE.  to be so ful of yourself that only your view has a purpose must be .... so self serving like only you deserve to exist.  This sounds like ohh the Nazis, I'm sure that among your tribe of religious yours is the only one that will also give you salvation.  

Why do you appear to be winning,  1) fearmongoring, you all pray on the fears of man and get them to belive that there is soneone that is looking out just for them, and he will keep them safe, Not when a hurricane comes, or when a mugger or rapist is at your foor, but when it is all said and done he will be there, 2) Diseducation, By denouncing all true education that isn't explained in a centries old book, on top of when religion started (called the dark ages for a reason) the only people that could read anything, especially this book were church leaders.  I can prove how stupid this is, if i can read sanscrit and i'm the only one well heck this says you must stand on your head for an hour once a week while whistling dixie.  of course they also only wrote the current version and control what they say.  So why does it look like you are winning your preditation on fear and controling knowledge and acceptance has created a socity that expects those to join you.

 

But you are loosing your hold and at each turn your lawyers are fighing to keep your control on everything from governments to the mom and pop store.  Why can't we keep church and state separate, why do you expect the education system to spread your information?    I say when you start teaching evolution and science in church than maybe creationism might be an accepted theory,  you have your deeducation and we'll have our education.


jmdixon79 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
AbsoluteTruth wrote:Renee

AbsoluteTruth wrote:

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

You state: "Atheism is motivated not by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

This would infer that an atheist isn't moral.

Define moral, without citing the bible.

-You are gravely mistaking me for a typical Christian. I usually don’t use the Bible unless atheists end up using it. The atheistic worldview cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. The Christian theist worldview can defend moral absolutes and thus it's moral system is consistent and non-self-contradictory.

 

Yes a moral system is inconsistant because humans are all different.  But I have not had sex with little boys, I have not prayed on the week, I have not evaded taxes in the name of a belief,  I also have not instigated a war on the your god is different and commited genocide.  So how is the religious sects moral compass so much better than mine?  Because 75% follow it?  I'm sure that 90% of your serial killers were devout religious.  I will follow the rules of man, which have been updated for this decade.   how many amdenments does yours have?

 

Oh I also don't need your looking over your sholder jist to make me do the moral thing.   We all know that when you are all done dressing up for each other on sunday your talking about your fellow belivers at home and coviting something they have wife, or goods.