Statistics about religion accummulated through the census over the decades have noticed that athiesm/agnostism or no religion is on the rise, while those practicing christianity is on the decline, Despite the fact that Islam is on the rise globally


But those on the left believe god and religion is on the way out where the human race might be at a stage where it would render religion or the concept of God obselete, and atheism will become the majority, do you think this will happen ???

Whilst I as an atheist would like us to replace God and religion, I know it won't happen on the basis people are generally fearful and stupid.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 10:50pm:

Whilst I as an atheist would like us to replace God and religion, I know it won't happen on the basis people are generally fearful and stupid.

Precisely.




I can understand a child being afraid of the dark, but I cannot understand an adult being afraid of the light.
- Plato



Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
- Winston Churchill

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 10:41pm:

Statistics about religion accummulated through the census over the decades have noticed that athiesm/agnostism or no religion is on the rise, while those practicing christianity is on the decline, Despite the fact that Islam is on the rise globally But those on the left believe god and religion is on the way out where the human race might be at a stage where it would render religion or the concept of God obselete, and atheism will become the majority, do you think this will happen ???

I thought the practising muslims were greatly waning.
apostates are increasing like a groundswell

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 10:41pm:

Statistics about religion accummulated through the census over the decades have noticed that athiesm/agnostism or no religion is on the rise, while those practicing christianity is on the decline, Despite the fact that Islam is on the rise globally But those on the left believe god and religion is on the way out where the human race might be at a stage where it would render religion or the concept of God obselete, and atheism will become the majority, do you think this will happen ???

There will always be a certain mindset that will believe in god.

It appears we are hard-wired for faith. One of those moments when you're trying to predict the future, because you are hoping for a certain outcome, then you'll likely feel the gravity of superstition... If I touch wood... If these lights turn green... If I don't step on the cracks... If the next card's a Jack.... Then all will be good.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 10:50pm:

Whilst I as an atheist would like us to replace God and religion, I know it won't happen on the basis people are generally fearful and stupid.

Not stupid, ignorant.

stryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2014 at 10:41pm:

Statistics about religion accummulated through the census over the decades have noticed that athiesm/agnostism or no religion is on the rise, while those practicing christianity is on the decline, Despite the fact that Islam is on the rise globally But those on the left believe god and religion is on the way out where the human race might be at a stage where it would render religion or the concept of God obselete, and atheism will become the majority, do you think this will happen ???

Christianity is only on the decline in Western countries. It's rising everywhere else - Africa, South America, Asia (perhaps not the Middle east).


The gods will return one day to the west. Maybe not for a few hundred years, but it's inevitable. The disenchantment of all phenomena will run its course and the sense of mystery will return.

Forces and items of nature exist independently of human beings (yet even we are a force and item of nature). All we do is observe them and manipulate them. So why are they here and why do they do what they do? The concept of 'force' was emptied of meaning by Newton. He simply wanted to measure forces, rather than ask why they do what they do. 

Depends on whether you recognise religion by principle or by labels.  That is to say, that many things you now call ideologies have all the hallmarks of religions, but aren't recognised as such by most.  I suspect this lack of recognition has something to do with the very strong correlation between professed atheism and adherence to these religions ideologies.

scrap that.

yeah, steadfast adherence to some point in religious-like fervour is common for militant atheists. I'd like to see them argue on the epistemological side of things more.

I don't think that is the sciences that make the masses irreligious. I think it has more to do with affluence.

Affluence is definitely part of it. There's also been a concerted growth in rancour toward authority figures over the past few decades.

Sappho wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 5:50pm:

I don't think that is the sciences that make the masses irreligious. I think it has more to do with affluence.

And that is exactly what the God of the O.T. regularly complained about - concerning his covenant people.

Time and gain, the God of Israel [and of Judah] in the O.T., complained that whenever the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah became affluent and prosperous, the people left off from following their covenant [and the statutes of righteousness] of their God.




e.g.
Isaiah 1:21
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
22  Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
23  Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.


Jeremiah 44:7
Therefore now thus saith the LORD, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; Wherefore commit ye this great evil against your souls, to cut off from you man and woman, child and suckling, out of Judah, to leave you none to remain;
8  In that ye provoke me unto wrath with the works of your hands, burning incense unto other gods in the land of Egypt, whither ye be gone to dwell, that ye might cut yourselves off, and that ye might be a curse and a reproach among all the nations of the earth?
9  Have ye forgotten the wickedness of your fathers, and the wickedness of the kings of Judah, and the wickedness of their wives, and your own wickedness, and the wickedness of your wives, which they have committed in the land of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem?
10  They are not humbled even unto this day, neither have they feared, nor walked in my law, nor in my statutes, that I set before you and before your fathers.
11  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all Judah.

Yadda wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

And that is exactly what the God of the O.T. regularly complained about - concerning his covenant people.

No surprises there. The religious leaders need something to keep in other competing powers in check.

Sappho wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 5:50pm:

I don't think that is the sciences that make the masses irreligious. I think it has more to do with affluence.

Are you sure about that.

I mean in the ancient times where there was no science or technical knowledge to explain away the happenings of our world, ancient peoples resorted to mythical supernatural deities, like the vikings explained the occurence of harsh weather due to the waving temperments of the gods rather than simple workings of mother nature!

Will God and religion become redundant ?

For conservatives Tony has already replaced them.

stryder wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2014 at 9:37am:

Sappho wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 5:50pm: I don't think that is the sciences that make the masses irreligious. I think it has more to do with affluence. Are you sure about that. I mean in the ancient times where there was no science or technical knowledge to explain away the happenings of our world, ancient peoples resorted to mythical supernatural deities, like the vikings explained the occurence of harsh weather due to the waving temperments of the gods rather than simple workings of mother nature!

Science only observes, measures and manipulates the 'happenings of the world'. The mystery is still present. Science can offer cause and effect explanations of phenomena, but often this only offers up more questions. Understanding the cause of one effect, or the multiple causes of one effect, only singles out a tiny occurrence of events. The chain of causes and effects leading to the phenomenon under investigation is probably endless. Where in the chain should the scientist or thinker start looking at causes? And where should they stop? Moreover, what is the force making causes and effects anyway? We can see the causes and effects, but what is the force causing them? Is this force intelligent? Why is it doing what it does? What is force anyway? Can the force creating causes and effects even provide meaning to life? An endless string of questions.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2014 at 9:04pm:

stryder wrote on Jun 22nd, 2014 at 9:37am: Sappho wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 5:50pm: I don't think that is the sciences that make the masses irreligious. I think it has more to do with affluence. Are you sure about that. I mean in the ancient times where there was no science or technical knowledge to explain away the happenings of our world, ancient peoples resorted to mythical supernatural deities, like the vikings explained the occurence of harsh weather due to the waving temperments of the gods rather than simple workings of mother nature! Science only observes, measures and manipulates the 'happenings of the world'. The mystery is still present. Science can offer cause and effect explanations of phenomena, but often this only offers up more questions. Understanding the cause of one effect, or the multiple causes of one effect, only singles out a tiny occurrence of events. The chain of causes and effects leading to the phenomenon under investigation is probably endless. Where in the chain should the scientist or thinker start looking at causes? And where should they stop? Moreover, what is the force making causes and effects anyway? We can see the causes and effects, but what is the force causing them? Is this force intelligent? Why is it doing what it does? What is force anyway? Can the force creating causes and effects even provide meaning to life? An endless string of questions.

Yes but science has uncovered so much of what was once unexplainable and only had to be explain through supernatural religous context., and if science in particular makes more in roads into astronomy and as our knowledge expands given such the discoveries of extra solar planets in the last 19 years and dark energy and matter, now im not saying for sure that this will happen that the more science evolves the less of a need to use God to explain everything will happen, but when i read stats of declining church attendance numbers in the past few decades and the rise of atheism makes me wonder sometimes where we are heading.

It's actually quite easily explained.
Education.
Where-ever education increases religion decreases.
Look at where Islam is strong, and also see why the fundamentalists resist education so fiercely, they know!
That was Christianity's "mistake", they started educating children, and lost them thereby. You only need look where Christianity is strong, poor education for the masses, as that improves so the Church fades away.

Let's hear it for the teachers!!!  :)

austranger wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:01pm:

It's actually quite easily explained. Education. Where-ever education increases religion decreases. Look at where Islam is strong, and also see why the fundamentalists resist education so fiercely, they know! That was Christianity's "mistake", they started educating children, and lost them thereby. You only need look where Christianity is strong, poor education for the masses, as that improves so the Church fades away. Let's hear it for the teachers!!!  :)

It's a nice and simple theory, but unfortunately, not really supported by facts.

Let's look at the 10 "most educated" countries in the world and see what we find.

1.  canada - white, majority christian.
2. Japan - east asian, historically religious
3. South Korea - Historically religious
4. UK - white, majority christian
5. Sweden - white, majority christian
6. Israel - jewish, jewish
7. France - white,majority christian
8. Germany - white, majority christian
9. Poland - white, majority christian
10. US - white, majority christian

I'm seeing some correlation, but it's not what you're looking for.  Perhaps it's not so easily explained after all.

stryder wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 1:34pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 22nd, 2014 at 9:04pm: stryder wrote on Jun 22nd, 2014 at 9:37am: Sappho wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 5:50pm: I don't think that is the sciences that make the masses irreligious. I think it has more to do with affluence. Are you sure about that. I mean in the ancient times where there was no science or technical knowledge to explain away the happenings of our world, ancient peoples resorted to mythical supernatural deities, like the vikings explained the occurence of harsh weather due to the waving temperments of the gods rather than simple workings of mother nature! Science only observes, measures and manipulates the 'happenings of the world'. The mystery is still present. Science can offer cause and effect explanations of phenomena, but often this only offers up more questions. Understanding the cause of one effect, or the multiple causes of one effect, only singles out a tiny occurrence of events. The chain of causes and effects leading to the phenomenon under investigation is probably endless. Where in the chain should the scientist or thinker start looking at causes? And where should they stop? Moreover, what is the force making causes and effects anyway? We can see the causes and effects, but what is the force causing them? Is this force intelligent? Why is it doing what it does? What is force anyway? Can the force creating causes and effects even provide meaning to life? An endless string of questions. Yes but science has uncovered so much of what was once unexplainable and only had to be explain through supernatural religous context., and if science in particular makes more in roads into astronomy and as our knowledge expands given such the discoveries of extra solar planets in the last 19 years and dark energy and matter, now im not saying for sure that this will happen that the more science evolves the less of a need to use God to explain everything will happen, but when i read stats of declining church attendance numbers in the past few decades and the rise of atheism makes me wonder sometimes where we are heading.

I see your point. Often God was stated as the ultimate creator and causer of all events. But now we don't look at the world wholistically, instead each event is broken down and looked at as an isolated case. Science is an expert at doing this. İ am wondering though, how far can we isolate the causes and effects of one event from the thousands or even millions of other causes and effects. Moreover, I am very interested in the concept of "forces(s)" physicists speak of frequently. Isn't this just a new name for God?

... wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:01pm: It's actually quite easily explained. Education. Where-ever education increases religion decreases. Look at where Islam is strong, and also see why the fundamentalists resist education so fiercely, they know! That was Christianity's "mistake", they started educating children, and lost them thereby. You only need look where Christianity is strong, poor education for the masses, as that improves so the Church fades away. Let's hear it for the teachers!!!  :) It's a nice and simple theory, but unfortunately, not really supported by facts. Let's look at the 10 most educated countries in the world and see what we find. 1.  canada - white, majority christian. 2. Japan - east asian, historically religious 3. South Korea - Historically religious 4. UK - white, majority christian 5. Sweden - white, majority christian 6. Israel - jewish, jewish 7. France - white,majority christian 8. Germany - white, majority christian 9. Poland - white, majority christian 10. US - white, majority christian I'm seeing some correlation, but it's not what you're looking for.  Perhaps it's not so easily explained after all.

Ohhhh SNAP!

Humans hunger for the sacred. Why can’t the new atheists understand that?

What is the sacred, and why do people cling to it? Sacred things, Émile Durkheim once wrote, are ‘set aside and forbidden’. To touch them with profane hands is to wipe away their aura, so that they flutter to earth and die. To those who respect them, however, sacred things are the ‘real presence’ of the supernatural, illuminated by a light that shines from the edge of the world.

How do we understand this experience, and what does it tell us? It is tempting to look for an evolutionary explanation. After all, sacred things seem to include all those events that really matter to our genes — falling in love, marriage, childbirth, death. The sacred place is the place where vows are made and renewed, where suffering is embraced and accepted, and where the life of the tribe is endowed with an eternal significance. Humans with the benefit of this resource must surely withstand the storms of misfortune rather better than the plain-thinking individualists who compete with them. Look at the facts in the round and it seems likely that humans without a sense of the sacred would have died out long ago. For that same reason, the hope of the new atheists for a world without religion is probably as vain as the hope for a society without aggression or a world without death.

I prefer to put evolutionary explanations to one side, however, so as to consider, not the benefit that sacredness confers on our genes, but the transformation it effects in our perceptions. A person with a sense of the sacred can lead a consecrated life, which is to say a life that is received and offered as a gift. An intimation of this is contained in our relations with those who are dear to us. There is a treasure-house of poetry devoted to the word ‘you’, and it records the human need to be absorbed by someone else, to see you as calling to me from beyond the sensory horizon. This experience is not accessible to scientific inquiry. It depends upon concepts, like freedom, responsibility and the self, that have no place in the language of science. The very idea of ‘you’ escapes the net of explanation.

Atheists dismiss that kind of argument. They tell us that the ‘self’ is an illusion, and that the human person is ‘nothing but’ the human animal, just as law is ‘nothing but’ relations of social power, sexual love ‘nothing but’ the procreative urge and the Mona Lisa ‘nothing but’ a spread of pigments on a canvas. Getting rid of what Mary Midgley calls ‘nothing buttery’ is, to my mind, the true goal of philosophy. And if we get rid of it when dealing with the small things — sex, pictures, people — we might get rid of it when dealing with the large things too: notably, when dealing with the world as a whole.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9218691/humans-hunger-for-the-sacred-why-cant-the-new-atheists-understand-that/

... wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

It's a nice and simple theory, but unfortunately, not really supported by facts. Let's look at the [10 "most educated" countries in the world and see what we find. 1.  canada - white, majority christian. 2. Japan - east asian, historically religious 3. South Korea - Historically religious 4. UK - white, majority christian 5. Sweden - white, majority christian 6. Israel - jewish, jewish 7. France - white,majority christian 8. Germany - white, majority christian 9. Poland - white, majority christian 10. US - white, majority christian I'm seeing some correlation, but it's not what you're looking for.  Perhaps it's not so easily explained after all.

I'm seeing no correlation. Just look at Japan. It's second on the list, yet 70–80% of Japanese  do not consider themselves believers in any religion. South Korea (3)  has 46.5% without religion. Canada is number 1, but it is less religious than the US which is at number 10.

In the US itself, the Mid-West Bible Belt has the lowest proportion of Bachelor Degrees, whereas the Eastern Seabord has the highest  proportion, and the lowest percentage of religious adherants.

xiena wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

I'm seeing no correlation.

No.  You wouldn't.

- and you would, because you just looked at it superficially?

I can understand that. Are you denying any of the facts I stated or just attacking the poster?

xiena wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

- and you would, because you just looked at it superficially? I can understand that. Are you denying any of the facts I stated or just attacking the poster?

I'm not making any grand claims about explaining complex issues, nor "attacking" anyone.  Still, even the superficial look I gave it is obviously more than austranger did, otherwise he wouldn't have much such an easily disprovable claim.

Just saying it's not that "sciencey" to make up explanations that you like, rather than explanations that fit the facts. 

The top ten most religious countries in the world are:

1. Ghana
2. Nigeria
3. Armenia
4. Fiji
5. Macedonia
6. Romania
7. Iraq
8. Kenya
9. Peru
10. Brazil

Now if your argument of correlation holds, then these countries must be brimming with geniuses right?

xiena wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 4:58pm:

The top ten most religious countries in the world are: 1. Ghana 2. Nigeria 3. Armenia 4. Fiji 5. Macedonia 6. Romania 7. Iraq 8. Kenya 9. Peru 10. Brazil Now if your argument of correlation holds, then these countries must be brimming with geniuses right?

As I said, I'm not making any grand claims, so one can only imagine what you think my "argument of correlation" is.

OK, you didn't make the original claim. I accept that. So just to put the issue to bed,  the top ten least educated countries in the world are:

1. Burkina Faso
2. South Sudan
3. Chad
4. Niger
5. Guinea
6. Benin
7. Sierra Leone
8. Ethiopia
9. Mozambique
19. Senegal

Most of those countries are over 99% religious. They are also poor countries. I think that poverty is more of an indicator than religion when it comes to education levels. 

xiena wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 5:10pm:

OK, you didn't make the original claim. I accept that. So just to put the issue to bed,  the top ten least educated countries in the world are: 1. Burkina Faso - black 2. South Sudan - black 3. Chad - black 4. Niger - black 5. Guinea - black 6. Benin - black 7. Sierra Leone - black 8. Ethiopia- black 9. Mozambique - black 19. Senegal - black Most of those countries are over 99% religious. They are also poor countries. I think that poverty is more of an indicator than religion when it comes to education levels.

Yep, could be.

There's also another correlation that you may not have noticed, which could be a factor.  By putting our heads together, we might just get to the bottom of this.

xiena wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 5:10pm:

OK, you didn't make the original claim. I accept that. So just to put the issue to bed,  the top ten least educated countries in the world are: 1. Burkina Faso 2. South Sudan 3. Chad 4. Niger 5. Guinea 6. Benin 7. Sierra Leone 8. Ethiopia 9. Mozambique 19. Senegal Most of those countries are over 99% religious. They are also poor countries. I think that poverty is more of an indicator than religion when it comes to education levels.

Defiantly, but there are studies that show religiosity is inversely correlated to education. Also poverty is directly correlated to education levels.

... wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:

Yep, could be. There's also another correlation that you may not have noticed, which could be a factor.  By putting our heads together, we might just get to the bottom of this.

I don't think so. Zimbabwe and Namibia have higher literacy rates than Turkey, Equador, Mexico and even China. Keep going. Eventually you'll get the hang of it.

xiena wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 6:59pm:

... wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 5:14pm: Yep, could be. There's also another correlation that you may not have noticed, which could be a factor.  By putting our heads together, we might just get to the bottom of this. I don't think so. Zimbabwe and Namibia have higher literacy rates than Turkey, Equador, Mexico and even China. Keep going. Eventually you'll get the hang of it.

So what?  You were talking about the "most educated countries" which is related to literacy, but it's not the same thing.  Even so, finding 2 black countries that have higher literacy than a couple of other non-black countries isn't much of a finding. 

What is it about noticing patterns that troubles you?  Further, if you don't want other people to notice them, don't bring them to the discussion.

But since we're noticing - I notice that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin.  As a general rule, the darker the skin, the more important religion is.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Religion_in_the_world.PNG/550px-Religion_in_the_world.PNG

Why do you mock and sneer at the culture and beliefs of all the worlds tinted peoples?  Sounds like the new face of white supremacy.

I can't post links, but all the sites I have quoted from used literacy rate as a measure of education level.  The title was education level and the measure was literacy rate.

The only correlation I can come up with is that you have a fixation with the color black.

I think the correlation is with equatorial regions. Maybe religion is caused by being too hot - Certainly not black.

Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccans,  Saudi Arabians and Qataris are not black.


... wrote on Jul 15^th, 2014 at 7:53am:

Why do you mock and sneer at the culture and beliefs of all the worlds tinted peoples?  Sounds like the new face of white supremacy.

Why do you jump to all the wrong conclusions so often? I was born in Australia but all my antecedents are/were Chinese.

xiena wrote on Jul 15^th, 2014 at 7:43pm:

Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccans,  Saudi Arabians and Qataris are not black.

The word I used was 'tinted'. 


xiena wrote on Jul 15^th, 2014 at 7:43pm:

Why do you jump to all the wrong conclusions so often? I was born in Australia but all my antecedents are/were Chinese.

OK, so it's not white supremacy.  But still, why mock and sneer at the culture and beliefs of all the worlds tinted peoples?

Your posts have been sneering, not mine. Apart from that unless you're an albino, you're tinted too.

xiena wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 6:26pm:

Your posts have been sneering, not mine. Apart from that unless you're an albino, you're tinted too.

yes, I do sneer at racist asswipes, especially if they don't own their racism.

I am too busy being a Smart Ass intimidating people so they get banned by backward little old ladies like Annie Anthrax with Free Divers Divers BALLS in my mouth.

... wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

xiena wrote on Jul 17th, 2014 at 6:26pm: Your posts have been sneering, not mine. Apart from that unless you're an albino, you're tinted too. yes, I do sneer at racist asswipes, especially if they don't own their racism.

Careful. If you sneer too much in the mirror, the look can stick.

... wrote on Jul 15^th, 2014 at 7:53am:

xiena wrote on Jul 14th, 2014 at 6:59pm: ... wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 5:14pm: Yep, could be. There's also another correlation that you may not have noticed, which could be a factor.  By putting our heads together, we might just get to the bottom of this. I don't think so. Zimbabwe and Namibia have higher literacy rates than Turkey, Equador, Mexico and even China. Keep going. Eventually you'll get the hang of it. So what?  You were talking about the "most educated countries" which is related to literacy, but it's not the same thing.  Even so, finding 2 black countries that have higher literacy than a couple of other non-black countries isn't much of a finding.  What is it about noticing patterns that troubles you?  Further, if you don't want other people to notice them, don't bring them to the discussion. But since we're noticing - I notice that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin.  As a general rule, the darker the skin, the more important religion is. Why do you mock and sneer at the culture and beliefs of all the worlds tinted peoples?  Sounds like the new face of white supremacy.

Considering no major religion was ever started by those with light (ie white) skin it should come as no surprise that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin.

Raven wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

... wrote on Jul 15th, 2014 at 7:53am: xiena wrote on Jul 14th, 2014 at 6:59pm: ... wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 5:14pm: Yep, could be. There's also another correlation that you may not have noticed, which could be a factor.  By putting our heads together, we might just get to the bottom of this. I don't think so. Zimbabwe and Namibia have higher literacy rates than Turkey, Equador, Mexico and even China. Keep going. Eventually you'll get the hang of it. So what?  You were talking about the "most educated countries" which is related to literacy, but it's not the same thing.  Even so, finding 2 black countries that have higher literacy than a couple of other non-black countries isn't much of a finding.  What is it about noticing patterns that troubles you?  Further, if you don't want other people to notice them, don't bring them to the discussion. But since we're noticing - I notice that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin.  As a general rule, the darker the skin, the more important religion is. Why do you mock and sneer at the culture and beliefs of all the worlds tinted peoples?  Sounds like the new face of white supremacy. Considering no major religion was ever started by those with light (ie white) skin it should come as no surprise that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin.

hmmmmm, so where does religion stand with these dark skin people in the future as the white race is in decline.

stryder wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

hmmmmm, so where does religion stand with these dark skin people in the future as the white race is in decline.

Decline being a very loose term.

Will the concept of god and associated religions become redundant? (don't you just hate people who repeat a question?)

I don't think so a) because they have been around since before pre-history and still are, and flourishing, and b) because there is something in the psychological nature of man that seeks answers to questions that can never be rationally answered.

Raven wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

Considering no major religion was ever started by those with light (ie white) skin it should come as no surprise that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin.

Are you saying Islam is not a major religion, then perhaps it is a major delusion?

There are many verses that say $Profit $Mo was white-
sunnah.com/search/?q=whiteness+thigh

I call him $Profit $Mo because of this verse-
quran.com/8/41

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

Are you saying Islam is not a major religion, then perhaps it is a major delusion?

He allegedly was born and lived in the middle east?  How white could he have been?

Even assuming writings about him were correct, or that he ever physically existed as depicted in writings.


bogarde73 wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 2:25pm:

a) because they have been around since before pre-history and still are, and flourishing

ok,

a) how do you know that religion has been around since pre-history?  By definition that would be pretty much impossible to prove.

b) just because something is flourishing and has been around for a long time is not validation.  You could be talking about, I dunno, war.  Or racism.  Or slavery.

Stratos wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Are you saying Islam is not a major religion, then perhaps it is a major delusion? He allegedly was born and lived in the middle east?  How white could he have been? Even assuming writings about him were correct, or that he ever physically existed as depicted in writings.

$Profit $Mo was white skinned, the Islamic texts are clear on this fact.

He was also a horny fat dwarf.

Of course leftists will make $Profit $Mo out to be dark skinned so they can hurl the racist slur at critics of Islam, bad luck on that one. :)

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

$Profit $Mo was white skinned, the Islamic texts are clear on this fact.

Why would you believe them if there is no evidence to support it?



Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

dark skinned so they can hurl the racist slur at critics of Islam, bad luck on that one

Dark skinned isn't a race.  Bad luck on that one.

Stratos wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 5:13pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11th, 2014 at 5:01pm: $Profit $Mo was white skinned, the Islamic texts are clear on this fact. Why would you believe them if there is no evidence to support it? What evidence do you have that contradicts the sahih ahadith? Do you know what a sahih hadith is? Why would we believe your bullcrap over what Islamic texts say? Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11th, 2014 at 5:01pm: dark skinned so they can hurl the racist slur at critics of Islam, bad luck on that one Dark skinned isn't a race.  Bad luck on that one. Muslim or Islam is not a race either, you cannot be phobic of an ideology one day lefties will wake up to that fallacy.

Baron, when are talking points like this, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 5:28pm:

Muslim or Islam is not a race either, you cannot be phobic of an ideology one day lefties will wake up to that fallacy.

::) You can be phobic of anything.  Literally anything.


Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 5:28pm:

Do you know what a sahih hadith is?

Yup.  Based on available evidence they were passed down orally for over 200 years before being collected and written down, and without any other to corroborate what is in them they are a poor source of historical information.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

Raven wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 5:57pm: Considering no major religion was ever started by those with light (ie white) skin it should come as no surprise that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin. Are you saying Islam is not a major religion, then perhaps it is a major delusion? There are many verses that say $Profit $Mo was white- sunnah.com/search/?q=whiteness+thigh I call him $Profit $Mo because of this verse- quran.com/8/41

And the Nazarene was always portrayed as white with blue eyes. But he wasn't.

stryder wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

Raven wrote on Sep 10th, 2014 at 5:57pm: ... wrote on Jul 15th, 2014 at 7:53am: xiena wrote on Jul 14th, 2014 at 6:59pm: ... wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 5:14pm: Yep, could be. There's also another correlation that you may not have noticed, which could be a factor.  By putting our heads together, we might just get to the bottom of this. I don't think so. Zimbabwe and Namibia have higher literacy rates than Turkey, Equador, Mexico and even China. Keep going. Eventually you'll get the hang of it. So what?  You were talking about the "most educated countries" which is related to literacy, but it's not the same thing.  Even so, finding 2 black countries that have higher literacy than a couple of other non-black countries isn't much of a finding.  What is it about noticing patterns that troubles you?  Further, if you don't want other people to notice them, don't bring them to the discussion. But since we're noticing - I notice that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin.  As a general rule, the darker the skin, the more important religion is. Why do you mock and sneer at the culture and beliefs of all the worlds tinted peoples?  Sounds like the new face of white supremacy. Considering no major religion was ever started by those with light (ie white) skin it should come as no surprise that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin. hmmmmm, so where does religion stand with these dark skin people in the future as the white race is in decline.

Basically where it does now. Majority of Jews and Muslims are Semites and the majority of Christians no longer reside in white western countries

Raven wrote on Nov 12^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11th, 2014 at 4:45pm: [quote author=Raven link=1402576898/41#41 date=1410335863] Considering no major religion was ever started by those with light (ie white) skin it should come as no surprise that the importance of religion is strongly correlated with dark skin. Are you saying Islam is not a major religion, then perhaps it is a major delusion?

More likely then not, along with every other religion.

Double post

I would like to suggest the poll is biased.
A simple Yes or No answer would be better because I cannot accept either alternative that is provided.
Science has shown no sign of coming close to know all things, particularly things outside its scope – like spirituality. True science is limited to the universe it studies and has no tools to observe what may be outside that universe.
I might agree that religion is becoming redundant because of affluence but that is dependent on continuing affluence which historically is likely to have a resurgance.
Therefore the poll, by trying to limit the answers in a narrow way is only succeeding in showing the bias of the person who proposed the poll.

Lorenzo wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 2:44pm:

Science has shown no sign of coming close to know all things, particularly things outside its scope – like spirituality.

Science studies things through testing and observation.

How exactly would you begin to analyse things which are "like spirituality" or "may be outside of the universe".  If you cannot test or observe such things, then I wonder what value they have other than as a thought experiment.

Stratos wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 12:54pm:

Lorenzo wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 2:44pm: Science has shown no sign of coming close to know all things, particularly things outside its scope – like spirituality. Science studies things through testing and observation. How exactly would you begin to analyse things which are "like spirituality" or "may be outside of the universe".  If you cannot test or observe such things, then I wonder what value they have other than as a thought experiment.

I think the closest we could come is observing and identifying neural processes that allow us to determine things like spirituality

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

I think the closest we could come is observing and identifying neural processes that allow us to determine things like spirituality

Neural Processors I'm not sure are what people have in mind when most people say spirituality. 

Stratos wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 1:37pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 1:09pm: I think the closest we could come is observing and identifying neural processes that allow us to determine things like spirituality Neural Processors I'm not sure are what people have in mind when most people say spirituality.

True but we were talking about science exploring spirituality.

Stratos wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 12:54pm:

Lorenzo wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 2:44pm: Science has shown no sign of coming close to know all things, particularly things outside its scope – like spirituality. Science studies things through testing and observation. How exactly would you begin to analyse things which are "like spirituality" or "may be outside of the universe".  If you cannot test or observe such things, then I wonder what value they have other than as a thought experiment.

All I am saying regarding science is that it is limited in what it can study and observe. It limits itself to what is physically observable and repeatable. That is its method and it is a fine method for what it is designed to do.
But if there is something outside of the physical universe then science is not the way to study it.
If you will not concede that there might be more than the physical universe than science is all that you need. But many do think there is more “out there” and as poor as it might be religion seems more able to fit the requirements of studying this alternate environment than anything else.

Lorenzo wrote on Nov 30^th, 2014 at 6:32am:

But many do think there is more “out there” and as poor as it might be religion seems more able to fit the requirements of studying this alternate environment than anything else.

I agree, and used to be in a very similar mindset to this when I was religious.  I learnt however that the correct answer of "nobody knows, wouldn't it be cool to find that out" than the guessed answer of "my particular deity is responsible.

Stratos wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 12:54pm:

Science studies things through testing and observation. If you cannot test or observe such things, then I wonder what value they have other than as a thought experiment.

Can science state the rightness or wrongness of one's, or anyone's, morality? After all, morality can be observed, right?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 1^st, 2014 at 6:25am:

Can science state the rightness or wrongness of one's, or anyone's, morality?

Of course not.

Neither can religion.

Stratos wrote on Dec 1^st, 2014 at 8:40am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 1st, 2014 at 6:25am: Can science state the rightness or wrongness of one's, or anyone's, morality? Of course not. Neither can religion.

I guess we have to decide whether “religion” is about a search for morality or a search for God.
If, as I think, it is the latter then we have to decide, assuming God is a person, whether the scientific method is the best way to establish a relationship with a person, any person.
I don’t think it is. A better way is to meet them and get to know them. I know if I have a good relationship with my children because it is self-evident or they tell me or others observing the relationship comment favourably. Science is not very helpful here.
Now assuming God is a greater person than we are then we probably have to wait for him/her to make the approach. This would be true of any other great (but lesser person) like a president or prime minister.
In the mean time we could get to know what he/she is like by talking to people that claim to have met him/her. These are people that the courts would call witnesses. Which brings me to an alternate method of finding truth other than through the scientific method.
For centuries the law courts have determined the truth of a matter largely through witnesses, hopefully 2 or 3. It tries to determine if they are ordinarily reliable people, whether they are largely in agreement regarding the matter (though not to closely in agreement because that implies collusion). If they are not normally people that tell lies then what they say, especially if several say much the same thing, is normally given considerable weight. Religion (or at least Christianity) claims to have a large collection of such people. Most have not been discredited by the very large number of people that have set out to scrupulously do just that, only by those that use less than scrupulous methods (that is using their prejudices).

Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1^st, 2014 at 11:30am:

I know if I have a good relationship with my children because it is self-evident or they tell me or others observing the relationship comment favourably. Science is not very helpful here.

The relationship with your kids is not anything like a relationship with a deity.  For one thing, the fact that your children even exist is provable, and it isn't with a supreme being (at least until some kind of evidence for said being turns up)




Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1^st, 2014 at 11:30am:

In the mean time we could get to know what he/she is like by talking to people that claim to have met him/her. These are people that the courts would call witnesses. Which brings me to an alternate method of finding truth other than through the scientific method. For centuries the law courts have determined the truth of a matter largely through witnesses, hopefully 2 or 3. It tries to determine if they are ordinarily reliable people, whether they are largely in agreement regarding the matter (though not to closely in agreement because that implies collusion). If they are not normally people that tell lies then what they say, especially if several say much the same thing, is normally given considerable weight.

In a similar vein to what you were saying about children, you are confusing two very different things.  If all you need as evidence is a few people to say it is true, then that would pretty much include every religion, every crazy conspiracy theory, and probably every mental health ward too.


Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1^st, 2014 at 11:30am:

Religion (or at least Christianity) claims to have a large collection of such people. Most have not been discredited by the very large number of people that have set out to scrupulously do just that, only by those that use less than scrupulous methods (that is using their prejudices).

What exactly are you referring to here?  The historicity of the religion (i.e. did the bible stories actually happen) or the believers?

If it is the believers, then it is wise to remember the burden of proof on any claim is on the person making the claim.  If someone claims that God exists, it is up to them to substantiate it, not for others to disprove it. 

Stratos wrote on Dec 1^st, 2014 at 11:43am:

Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1st, 2014 at 11:30am: I know if I have a good relationship with my children because it is self-evident or they tell me or others observing the relationship comment favourably. Science is not very helpful here. There is no doubt that my children exist although there have been some philosophers that question even their own existence. But the question is do my children love me? And that cannot be tested in a laboratory. I just know it. I could be fooling myself but the evidence, such as it is, has to be subjective and, for me at least, pretty convincing. My point about 2 or 3 witnesses is the quality of the witnesses. If we could not trust reputable witnesses we could not have any sort of justice system worthy to be called by that name. In the case of Christianity the prime witness is Jesus himself because all his claims are pretty consistently reported in the gospels. If his claims about himself are true then he is either someone that is criminally insane or he is what he claimed to be – God. For 2000 years the only people that have come to the first conclusion are people that have not examined the claims thoroughly. If Jesus’ claim to be God is in fact true then there he is – God. I know that the prejudice that he cannot be God will defeat anyone coming to examine the claim before they start but many people have examined it and come to the conclusion that he is God. Which leaves them with a dilemma - what are they going to do about it? If the Bible is true in other areas then we are all prejudiced against God and something else is required to turn their thinking. So it is not surprising that most people are unable to see what is startlingly obvious to others. The relationship with your kids is not anything like a relationship with a deity.  For one thing, the fact that your children even exist is provable, and it isn't with a supreme being (at least until some kind of evidence for said being turns up) Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1st, 2014 at 11:30am: In the mean time we could get to know what he/she is like by talking to people that claim to have met him/her. These are people that the courts would call witnesses. Which brings me to an alternate method of finding truth other than through the scientific method. For centuries the law courts have determined the truth of a matter largely through witnesses, hopefully 2 or 3. It tries to determine if they are ordinarily reliable people, whether they are largely in agreement regarding the matter (though not to closely in agreement because that implies collusion). If they are not normally people that tell lies then what they say, especially if several say much the same thing, is normally given considerable weight. In a similar vein to what you were saying about children, you are confusing two very different things.  If all you need as evidence is a few people to say it is true, then that would pretty much include every religion, every crazy conspiracy theory, and probably every mental health ward too. Lorenzo wrote on Dec 1st, 2014 at 11:30am: Religion (or at least Christianity) claims to have a large collection of such people. Most have not been discredited by the very large number of people that have set out to scrupulously do just that, only by those that use less than scrupulous methods (that is using their prejudices). What exactly are you referring to here?  The historicity of the religion (i.e. did the bible stories actually happen) or the believers? If it is the believers, then it is wise to remember the burden of proof on any claim is on the person making the claim.  If someone claims that God exists, it is up to them to substantiate it, not for others to disprove it.

Did you mean to write something Lorenzo?

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.