Mclean's - Do atheists care less?

[SeeBass]

Why must we go to church on Sundays?

I would be very dissapointed if the creator of the universe took attendance.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

There was a lot of controversy back then as well and not everyone believed either. This debate you may say has been going on pretty much since then.

Just look at more recent history such as 9/11 and the JFK assissination. Those were both well documented and also recorded events but yet there is no shortage of controversy or conspiracy theories surrounding them either. Human nature it appears is constant and hasn't changed much over the last 2000 years.

It was easier to get away with "miracles" back then. Todays conspiracy theories have all be debunked with the use of video footage,science and common sense.

If Jesus were alive today performing he would have a TV show ala Chris Mindfreak.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not going to get into what I experience, unless I was a poet it would probably seem pretty boring.

I read this somewhere though, "before I was enlightened, I chopped wood and carried water, after I was enlightened I chopped wood and carried water."

I'm sure that when I practice what I do, my body and brain chemistry probably alters but I don't have any near death or other outlandish experiences. Maybe I can say I feel at peace and very aware, well more than that. I long ago did do some drugs but they interfere with what I do now.

Seriously, good for you.

If your belief gives you some kind of peace than I'm glad for you. We should all learn a lesson and be accepting of people who have found something they're looking for instead of always attacking them and demanding they explain themselves.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Why must we go to church on Sundays?

I would be very dissapointed if the creator of the universe took attendance.

Nobody is forcing you to go to church on Sunday.

Seems like you just like to whine about it though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

It was easier to get away with "miracles" back then. Todays conspiracy theories have all be debunked with the use of video footage,science and common sense.

If Jesus were alive today performing he would have a TV show ala Chris Mindfreak.

They have?

I don't know if you ever read the Randi forums, but they have a site dedicated to 'conspiracy theories.' I've lurked over there since 2003 about, and they're still going strong with the 9/11 theories.

Conspiracies are going to be a common theme in any free country as long as we live. Its simply human nature to not believe something even if the evidence proving otherwise is quite clear.

And there is more evidence that the 9/11 attacks weren't an inside job than there is that God doesn't exist.

Which basically throws out your theory that 'in 50 years God and religion will be a distant memory.'

[driveway]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

In the big picture, are the inaccuracies you speak of all that important? Logic will tell you that if you have 4 different people document an event there could be some discrepancies. It's all in how you look at it I suppose. What's obvious to me when I read those gospels is the common theme and that is faith.

The inaccuracies, contradictions, questionable authorship, etc. become important when people use the Bible as the basis for secular law.

The easy example is Gay Marriage, the fiercest opponents of which generally use the Bible as the basis for their opposition. But, if the Bible can be wrong using it as a defence of a political position is flawed, because the instruction in question may not be divinely inspired.

This leads to the second problem, which is that if the Bible can be wrong, how can any part of it be trusted? If the creation story is to be read as an allegory, why not the Jesus story? Other than the biblical account, there is no empirical evidence of the existence of the character Jesus, could he not be an allegory for the potential for grace and salvation, forgiveness and good conduct contained in each and every one of us?

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

That's not really why religion is failing. Is religion failing in the United States? Not at all and it's not just the uneducated and poor that are religious in the States. It's the middle class.

But it is failing in the United States. Not only are the numbers of people declaring themselves unbelievers increasing, but those who claim affiliation are less 'active' than churchgoers were even just twenty years ago (when measured by attendance and financial support).

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

It might be failing in Canada but not to the extent that it has in Europe. Why has it failed in Europe? Well, the two World Wards completely discredited the church and made it difficult to maintain faith in face of complete depravity and tragedy. Technological and scientific advances helped along Europe's lack of faith, but it wasn't the catalyst.

Secularism has a longer history in Europe that predates either of the World Wars. Additionally, why are Canadians increasing in secularity without suffering the depravity of the World Wars? Also, why are the Scandinavian nations, which were spared much of the depravity of the World Wars, leading Europe in their unbelief?

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I think it's a major assumption to think our children will be less religious that we are.

Young people already are far less religious than their parents (see here), and the trendlines are not looking good for the religious.

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Another collapse of the world economy and people will start turning to religion and other idols very quickly.

Where is the evidence for this?

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Rational thinking is much easier during the good times rather than the bad. We are only 65 years removed from WWII, so it is not like the first world has been at peace or rational with each other for very long.

That is likely true. However it is also likely true that rational thinking will lead to much more of the good times and less of the bad.

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

There is also still the major exploitation of the third world in order to prop up ours. Exploiting the impoverished countries doesn't seem like too solid of a basis for the age of rationality. If rationality says one must treat others how he wishes to be treated, then none of us are too rational. Of course, it is not practical to fight the system to that level, I am just pointing out that a society cannot claim to be rational and exploit the third world for its livelihood. We have a long, long way to go.

Major exploitation based upon which frame of moral reference? Certainly the fact that some are outraged by exploitation is more a reflection of our increasingly rational understanding of human rights.

For many centuries travesties of untold horror were waged upon developing nations. Much of this was justified by an appeal to the irrational (ie. divine manifest)

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I also think something must be said for 'irrational thinking'. When a person values something or someone else, it is often irrational but not necessarily a bad thing. There is no tangible reason one loves their dog. It's a dog, you pick it and love it no matter it's personality. That's irrational and not bad. The same thing can be said to a lesser extent for your SO. Sure there are reasons you picked that person, but there is also an intrinsic value you have for that person that is also not rational.

I am curious why you would find these emotions irrational. I certainly don't.

~bug

[DionPlett]

Originally Posted by driveway

The inaccuracies, contradictions, questionable authorship, etc. become important when people use the Bible as the basis for secular law.

The easy example is Gay Marriage, the fiercest opponents of which generally use the Bible as the basis for their opposition. But, if the Bible can be wrong using it as a defence of a political position is flawed, because the instruction in question may not be divinely inspired.

This leads to the second problem, which is that if the Bible can be wrong, how can any part of it be trusted? If the creation story is to be read as an allegory, why not the Jesus story? Other than the biblical account, there is no empirical evidence of the existence of the character Jesus, could he not be an allegory for the potential for grace and salvation, forgiveness and good conduct contained in each and every one of us?

Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. I only got involved in this discussion to post what I think are basic insights if you will. The existance of God in general.
I believe there are churches out there that are ok with gay marriage. Religeon is something I'm somewhat interested in and I do read up on different religeons and denominations to try and see what they actually believe in and what their policies are and how they derive upon them.
Now it seems we're getting beyond as to wether or not God even exists and into organized religeon and that's a whole other topic I think.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

They have?

I don't know if you ever read the Randi forums, but they have a site dedicated to 'conspiracy theories.' I've lurked over there since 2003 about, and they're still going strong with the 9/11 theories.

Conspiracies are going to be a common theme in any free country as long as we live. Its simply human nature to not believe something even if the evidence proving otherwise is quite clear.

And there is more evidence that the 9/11 attacks weren't an inside job than there is that God doesn't exist.

Which basically throws out your theory that 'in 50 years God and religion will be a distant memory.'

Yeah like the missiles straped to the bottom of the 757's, there was no plane that hit the pentagon and a texas oil baron or Castro had Kennedy killed.

For some reason I'm not at all surprised you believe in those things without proof.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yeah like the missiles straped to the bottom of the 757's, there was no plane that hit the pentagon and a texas oil baron or Castro had Kennedy killed.

For some reason I'm not at all surprised you believe in those things without proof.

I do?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

I do?

Sounds like you do, or are you just trying to pick a fight?

Your the one who reads rubbish conspiracy forums.

[photon]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

In the big picture, are the inaccuracies you speak of all that important?

That depends on your beliefs and why the question is being asked. For many Christians the answer is no they aren't important, in fact they're informative because they give hints as to the authors' original intent, or the scribe who changed the text's intent.

However for those that believe that every word is verbally inspired and inerrant, such things are important. Or for those that believe that Christianity is the one true religion and that all others are deceptions from the devil that will lead you to hell, establishing the Bible as superior to other scripture is essential. If the Bible is no better or worse historically, no better or worse in accuracy, no better or worse in self consistency, why believe what it says over what any other book says?

I think we know why people believe one book over another, the fact that geographic location is the primary determining factor in which holy book an individual will subscribe to speaks to that.

Originally Posted by DionPlett

Logic will tell you that if you have 4 different people document an event there could be some discrepancies. It's all in how you look at it I suppose.

Exactly, and logic would also dictate that if those people were documenting an event that happened decades ago in a land thousands of kilometers away that spoke a different language based on 2nd or 3rd or who knows how manynd accounts and each had their own goals and views and theologies then the resulting accounts would be different. Not just different because someone made a mistake, but different because they were trying to say different things.

Originally Posted by DionPlett

What's obvious to me when I read those gospels is the common theme and that is faith.

Faith in what though? The gospels have different views even on the very nature of Jesus. Or just faith in general?

I think the common theme of the gospels is that Jesus is the messiah, the end is coming in a few short months or years, so get your crap together because it's all over and you want to be on the right side.

Originally Posted by DionPlett

There was a lot of controversy back then as well and not everyone believed either. This debate you may say has been going on pretty much since then.

Yup. There was MORE controversy back then I think, it wasn't just Christianity vs. everyone else, it was sects of Christianity vs. other sects. We get the benefit of centuries of refinement of the scripture and the doctrines and the answers.. there were a lot of books in circulation in the first few centuries of the church that didn't make it into the eventual canon but were viewed as authoritative, books that would be viewed as wildly heretical now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

Sounds like you do, or are you just trying to pick a fight?

Your the one who reads rubbish conspiracy forums.

Do you even know who James Randi is?

Or what the James Randi Educational Foundation is?

Maybe you should look him up before you stick your foot into your mouth again.

[photon]

Originally Posted by T@T

Your the one who reads rubbish conspiracy forums.

Lol, the forums Azure is talking about are hardly rubbish conspiracy forums.

You aren't reading what Azure is writing.. he didn't say the conspiracy theories had any merit, he said:

"Its simply human nature to not believe something even if the evidence proving otherwise is quite clear."

And was providing the excellent JREF forum as an example that people believe what they want despite evidence.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by firebug

But it is failing in the United States. Not only are the numbers of people declaring themselves unbelievers increasing, but those who claim affiliation are less 'active' than churchgoers were even just twenty years ago (when measured by attendance and financial support).

Some organizations may find attendance on a downward trend but others will express the opposite. On the whole I'm not sure that its that easy to quantify.

Originally Posted by firebug

Young people already are far less religious than their parents (see here), and the trendlines are not looking good for the religious.

Regarding an example of evidence that there can be fluctuations just look at some of the past historical occurrences, more recent being 9/11, sales of Bibles went through the roof. You will likely find relationships like this with other events as well.

Also on your note about Scandanavia (lack of personal and social malaise), do some of those countries not have higher suicide rates then North American countries? If we are looking objectively at personal and social discomforts I assume looking at suicide rates would be one indicator of several to look at of course.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by DionPlett

Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. I only got involved in this discussion to post what I think are basic insights if you will. The existance of God in general.
I believe there are churches out there that are ok with gay marriage. Religeon is something I'm somewhat interested in and I do read up on different religeons and denominations to try and see what they actually believe in and what their policies are and how they derive upon them.
Now it seems we're getting beyond as to wether or not God even exists and into organized religeon and that's a whole other topic I think.

I think most skeptics would contend is not that the bible is complete fabrication, but merely that there is no evidence for any miracle described within it.

Similarly with deity, skeptics are unlikely to claim that there is no god of any sort in the Universe, just that there is no evidence of any. Meanwhile the Judeo-Christian concept of god has many lines of evidence that would lead to the rational decision that he does not exist (in the manner described by the Bible).

**********************

I think where Elohim/Jehovah really screwed up was with Moses. Here was his big chance to provide some of his infinite wisdom to his chosen people. Instead we got the 10 commandments which contained nothing in the way of new information to humanity (or was killing a-okay before the commandments were given).

What if instead he would have told Moses about the germ-theory of disease? What about smelting or stainless steel? Or think about how unstoppable they would've been had they known about gun-powder?

Instead, there is nothing in the Bible (let alone Genesis or Exodus) that couldn't have been imagined by a bronze-age nomadic person.

As Sagan notes in The Demon Haunted World, why do channellers, psychics and Alien contactees, only provide generic platitudes like 'Peace' or 'Don't destroy the environment' and never any new insight or new information?

The same reason the Bible doesn't.

~bug

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by firebug

But it is failing in the United States. Not only are the numbers of people declaring themselves unbelievers increasing, but those who claim affiliation are less 'active' than churchgoers were even just twenty years ago (when measured by attendance and financial support).

Well there's a downward trend in belief but failing is the wrong word. It's certainly thriving in some parts of the United States. I hope the downward trend will continue but the American political and culture climate is very volatile. The tea party and the vitriol being spouted throughout the government is proof of that. The economy is coming back but nobody has fixed the problem that caused the collapse in the first place. It's very easy for discontented and put-down people to fall for idols like religion or fascism. It's what happened after World War I. So the proper term is a 'downward trend' in religion and irrational thinking and not a failing of religion. Progress is being made, but it could turn in an instant.

Originally Posted by firebug

Secularism has a longer history in Europe that predates either of the World Wars. Additionally, why are Canadians increasing in secularity without suffering the depravity of the World Wars? Also, why are the Scandinavian nations, which were spared much of the depravity of the World Wars, leading Europe in their unbelief?

Yes secularism has a long history in Europe but so does religion and religious fundamentalism. These things ebb and flow. My contention is that World War II was the catalyst of Europe's current widespread embrace of secularism. Europe in 1939-1944 has to be a time when humanity was its most irrational. Then the war ends and everyone awakes to the horrid depravity in front of them.

Rational thinking and secularism seemed like the best place to go following that, but without World War II Europe would never have had that awakening. Scandinavia was spared mostly from World War II but they were still a part of it, in a way that North America wasn't. North Americans could disconnect themselves from the Europeans. They could still maintain a moral superiority that Europeans could not. A moral superiority that was maintained throughout the Cold War and based on religion. The God-fearing righteous Americans vs. the Godless Communists.

Canada is increasing in secularity for much the same reason the United States is, education and advances in scientific thinking. But at a faster rate because Canada identifies more with European society and they weren't tied up in the Cold War.

I'm not saying education and scientific advances haven't pushed Europe and the first world more towards secularism, I'm saying there are other reasons too. The assumption of continuing progress in secularism and rationality is naive.

Originally Posted by firebug

Young people already are far less religious than their parents (see here), and the trendlines are not looking good for the religious.

I've seen these numbers before. I'm not arguing against a downward trend. Just the assumption that it will continue forever and always.

Originally Posted by firebug

Where is the evidence for this?

Throughout history, tough economic times lead to discontent among people. Post World War I Germany is the most obvious example of this. You see this in every society, things go bad and people get desperate. This discontent will make people easily manipulated to irrational viewpoints like religious fundamentalism, racism, and other prejudices.

Originally Posted by firebug

That is likely true. However it is also likely true that rational thinking will lead to much more of the good times and less of the bad.

I agree. I'm just arguing against your assumption of continuing progress in rational thinking.

Originally Posted by firebug

Major exploitation based upon which frame of moral reference? Certainly the fact that some are outraged by exploitation is more a reflection of our increasingly rational understanding of human rights.

For many centuries travesties of untold horror were waged upon developing nations. Much of this was justified by an appeal to the irrational (ie. divine manifest)

I agree. I was just saying we have a long way to go before we can be considered a rational society.

Originally Posted by firebug

I am curious why you would find these emotions irrational. I certainly don't.

I don't find the emotion to be irrational, but who we choose to love is irrational. One does not use reason in deciding who to love.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Some organizations may find attendance on a downward trend but others will express the opposite. On the whole I'm not sure that its that easy to quantify.

Actually you have it backwards. On the whole it is easy to quantify; where it is less simple to discern is within the groups or congregations.

Originally Posted by Finny61

Regarding an example of evidence that there can be fluctuations just look at some of the past historical occurrences, more recent being 9/11, sales of Bibles went through the roof. You will likely find relationships like this with other events as well.

Do you have any sources for this? My preliminary searches mainly came up with claims (from islamic sites) that sales of the Koran increased after 9/11.

Originally Posted by Finny61

Also on your note about Scandanavia (lack of personal and social malaise), do some of those countries not have higher suicide rates then North American countries? If we are looking objectively at personal and social discomforts I assume looking at suicide rates would be one indicator of several to look at of course.

That would be an interesting correlation to try and determine. My cursory glance at suicide rates by country left me bewildered at trying to tie an easy line in with levels of religious belief.

I suspect the factors leading to suicide are too complex to boil down strictly to belief vs. unbelief (e.g. are people killing themselves because they are unhappy or because they are physically suffering) although many religions have strict suicide taboos so their adherents may be less likely to kill themselves yet not be any happier.

~bug

[Finny61]

I'll certainly give it a go and find a source on bible sales when I'm off work. Do me the favor of finding a legitimate source in mainstream (not a forum) that is convincing on downward trending in religion (not saying I don't find some agreement in your case).

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Finny61

I'll certainly give it a go and find a source on bible sales when I'm off work. Do me the favor of finding a legitimate source in mainstream (not a forum) that is convincing on downward trending in religion (not saying I don't find some agreement in your case).

A few to get you started:

US Census

Religious Tolerance.org

Barna Group -> (A 'born-again' research foundation)

The Pew Research Center and the National Opinion Research Center (graph) also do studies on these matters.

~bug