America Becoming Less Christian, Survey Shows

[Talvezout]

Yay this thread did what I thought it would do and turned into a theist vs atheist debate. Shock and amazement.

This is exactly what I was thinking lol. Religion/Politics/Sports and large discussion groups don't ever mix well.

I regret quite a bit now.

[Neutraligon]

The fact that religion can be so misused is part of the problem. When blind faith is used, atrocities are far more easy to commit.

It can be "misused" because there is no actual god to determine what his religion "truly" is.

Whether there is a god or not is irrelevant to my comment.

If the god is not powerful enough to stop those actions then it does not matter
If the god is powerful enough but does not want to for whatever reason it still does not matter
if the god is powerful enough and is encouraging those actions it still does not matter

Even if any of those three things hold true it is still a fact that it is blind faith that allows the people to commit atrocities.

I don't see religion as dangerous, I see blind faith as dangerous. For that reason I can easily support certain forms of Christianity, Judaism, etc, even if I doubt the existence of their god.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It can be "misused" because there is no actual god to determine what his religion "truly" is.

Whether there is a god or not is irrelevant to my comment.

It isn't, as I just demonstrated.

[Big Jim P]

It can be "misused" because there is no actual god to determine what his religion "truly" is.

Whether there is a god or not is irrelevant to my comment.

If the god is not powerful enough to stop those actions then it does not matter
If the god is powerful enough but does not want to for whatever reason it still does not matter
if the god is powerful enough and is encouraging those actions it still does not matter

I don't see religion as dangerous, I see blind faith as dangerous.

Blind faith is indeed the real danger.

[Republic of the Cristo]

How? If one thinks about it, a higher being is inevitable. Our very existence is proof of that, due to the law of cause and effect.
Also, if everyone acted in knowing that they would be judged for what they do in the next life, do you think this world would be all that bad?

Neither of these are sound or valid arguments in any way. They don't have a single true premise. Let's see how many fallacies I can find:

special pleading, equivocation, argument from ignorance, false dichotomy, casual reductionism, false compromise, bastard combination of future considerations and bandwagon, and ends justify means.

How is it ignorant to believe that the law of cause and effect proves there is a God? Consider the following. Our Universe was created some long time ago in a moment of creation ( big bang, genesis, what ever) Something had to have caused this. If you are a believer in the Giant ball theory ( tell me if you are something else, because I know a lot of people find this really sketchy) then what created the matter and energy existing in said ball? Lets say you discovered an event to have caused this, what caused it? How far back will you have to go until you do eventually find a beginning? From the sequence of events that have thus far appeared, it would seem that the Universe is seemingly eternal. Meaning that it has no beginning or end, therefore breaking the law of cause and effect and being dubbed " supernatural" Which I know you hate so much

[Imperial Esplanade]

^^ This.

Anyone can initiate any war, and use religion as a rallying call... but that doesn't make religion a primary reason for that war, though.

You can't just rewrite history. You're making this shit up as you go along. They fought for Christianity and God, that's why they thought they were fighting and that was the call to war, so that's what people fought and killed and looted and raped for.

Uh, no.

First Crusade was initiated as a preemptive strike war or a defensive war against an increasingly militant Islamic region, not excluding the Seljuk Turks. This much all depends upon who you ask. The Fall of Constantinople was the final straw after hundreds of years of Muslims chipping away at Christendom, and while there wasn't really an immediate existential threat to mainland Europe, it's not a secret that the endgame for the Muslims at the time was the complete conquest of Christendom... and they were slowly building up and preparing for just that. The subsequent Crusades occurred for a variety of reasons, most of which were called for by Christian Kings. The Vatican and the Pope hardly had any hand in any of them, and never had any commanders in the actual fighting... all the crap that happened during the Crusades are predominantly on the Crusaders themselves. Before some of you die from a stroke after all I just posted... Yes, there were some bad Popes, in fact some were excommunicated and branded as heretics.

My point, though, is that much of what you (personally) appear to know is HIGHLY inaccurate and you should read more than just the first couple sentences in a couple of Wikipedia articles. I'll just leave it at that.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/war.shtml - As for your supposed belief that wars cause religion.

[The Merchant Republics]

^^ This.

Anyone can initiate any war, and use religion as a rallying call... but that doesn't make religion a primary reason for that war, though.

You can't just rewrite history. You're making this shit up as you go along. They fought for Christianity and God, that's why they thought they were fighting and that was the call to war, so that's what people fought and killed and looted and raped for.

I'll not you listed the Fourth Crusade there, and that might be an honest mistake, most of the crusades had the justification of holy war, and the fourth crusade started with that aim. It also ended before anyone substantiated that.

Instead, the crusaders sacked Constantinople for almost exclusively secular reasons, the differences in theology helped "other" the Byzantines, but it was not sacked for not believing in the Latin Church, it was sacked because Doge Donaldo had a burning hatred for the Byzantines and had the money and political acumen to convince a crusader fleet to switch objectives.

Similarly, the First Crusade was fought to aid the Byzantines against the Turks, it's justification was protection of Christendom, but the hard fact is had the Western Roman Empire still stood and had been pagan, they would have had the same justification to assist the Byzantines, they were asked to.

The justifications of war are aided by religion, I will not argue that. The promise of heaven greases the wheel of men otherwise unwilling to die; but so does the promise of glory or wealth. The Huns did not invade in the name of their gods, nor did Ghengis Khan kill the millions he did in wholesale slaughter in that justification, that was naked desire for power.

It is not a question of "does religion make good people do bad things" but of "was there ever any good people in the first place" , I would submit we see in the Crusades and in other Holy Wars, that wherever we see slaughter is usually appalled by the religious authorities involved, or otherwise regarded as cold necessity, but any accounting of mercy is always attributed to the intervention of religious mores. Whether it be Saladin sparing the defenders of Jerusalem, or Christians not putting to the sword Muslims in the same victories.

[Neutraligon]

Whether there is a god or not is irrelevant to my comment.

If the god is not powerful enough to stop those actions then it does not matter
If the god is powerful enough but does not want to for whatever reason it still does not matter
if the god is powerful enough and is encouraging those actions it still does not matter

I don't see religion as dangerous, I see blind faith as dangerous.

Blind faith is indeed the real danger.

It is why I have no issue with most of the Christians I discuss things in depth with, because most do not follow their religion in blind faith. It is because they admit they could very easily be wrong and others be right and so they do not force their views on how people should act or believe onto others.

Blind faith is why we had witch burnings, it is why we have abortion clinic bombings, it is why we have ISIS and any of those other fundamentalist groups, it is why places like North Korea exist.

[Neutraligon]

Neither of these are sound or valid arguments in any way. They don't have a single true premise. Let's see how many fallacies I can find:

special pleading, equivocation, argument from ignorance, false dichotomy, casual reductionism, false compromise, bastard combination of future considerations and bandwagon, and ends justify means.

How is it ignorant to believe that the law of cause and effect proves there is a God? Consider the following. Our Universe was created some long time ago in a moment of creation ( big bang, genesis, what ever) Something had to have caused this. If you are a believer in the Giant ball theory ( tell me if you are something else, because I know a lot of people find this really sketchy) then what created the matter and energy existing in said ball? Lets say you discovered an event to have caused this, what caused it? How far back will you have to go until you do eventually find a beginning? From the sequence of events that have thus far appeared, it would seem that the Universe is seemingly eternal. Meaning that it has no beginning or end, therefore breaking the law of cause and effect and being dubbed " supernatural" Which I know you hate so much

Iwould suggest that this discussion be taken to a different thread.

[Dyakovo]

Don't mind them, they're close minded egoists upholding the tradition of atheistic leftism. It's funny how many people with a similar platform in attacking religion and religious people is routed in "open mindedness".

You really should get your insults straight before you post. Either bash Dyakovo for being an amoral hedonistic nihilist or a fire-breathing zealous leftist - the two positions are pretty mutually exclusive.

Doesn't really matter, since neither is accurate... Not to mention the fact that his Jimmies are rustled over what is clearly a joke.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Neither of these are sound or valid arguments in any way. They don't have a single true premise. Let's see how many fallacies I can find:

special pleading, equivocation, argument from ignorance, false dichotomy, casual reductionism, false compromise, bastard combination of future considerations and bandwagon, and ends justify means.

How is it ignorant to believe that the law of cause and effect proves there is a God? Consider the following. Our Universe was created some long time ago in a moment of creation ( big bang, genesis, what ever) Something had to have caused this. If you are a believer in the Giant ball theory ( tell me if you are something else, because I know a lot of people find this really sketchy) then what created the matter and energy existing in said ball? Lets say you discovered an event to have caused this, what caused it? How far back will you have to go until you do eventually find a beginning? From the sequence of events that have thus far appeared, it would seem that the Universe is seemingly eternal. Meaning that it has no beginning or end, therefore breaking the law of cause and effect and being dubbed " supernatural" Which I know you hate so much

the law of cause and effect is not a thing. The rest of your post is special pleading, equivocation, and false dichotomies. Consider the following:

The universe exists. By your (immensly flawed) logic, it must have been caused.
You believe god exists. By your (immensely flawed) logic, god must have been caused.

You have two responses:
your argument sucks(it does, you can just admit it or not)
not admit your argument sucks, and anything you come up with to special plead god as uncaused I'll just strikeout god and put "the universe" in, which is necessarily as at least as good an explanation as for god.

Your move.

[The Merchant Republics]

Blind faith is indeed the real danger.

It is why I have no issue with most of the Christians I discuss things in depth with, because most do not follow their religion in blind faith. It is because they admit they could very easily be wrong and others be right and so they do not force their views on how people should act or believe onto others.

Blind faith is why we had witch burnings, it is why we have abortion clinic bombings, it is why we have ISIS and any of those other fundamentalist groups, it is why places like North Korea exist.

It's worth considering that with the slow reversal of fortunes between Christianity and Atheism, we are soon going to reach a point where there are going to be those with frank blind faith in atheism.

Indeed, when I was studying in Switzerland, I had made a friend of a German pastor who had evangelized in what was formerly East Germany; where so many people were apathetically atheist that he had to start at the ground level of just introducing the idea of God; he said actually that he felt his work was a lot more meaningful there than in other places because many people he met had not already been "innoculated" with a weaker version of Christian thought before.

[Neutraligon]

It is why I have no issue with most of the Christians I discuss things in depth with, because most do not follow their religion in blind faith. It is because they admit they could very easily be wrong and others be right and so they do not force their views on how people should act or believe onto others.

Blind faith is why we had witch burnings, it is why we have abortion clinic bombings, it is why we have ISIS and any of those other fundamentalist groups, it is why places like North Korea exist.

It's worth considering that with the slow reversal of fortunes between Christianity and Atheism, we are soon going to reach a point where there are going to be those with frank blind faith in atheism.

Indeed, when I was studying in Switzerland, I had made a friend of a German pastor who had evangelized in what was formerly East Germany; where so many people were apathetically atheist that he had to start at the ground level of just introducing the idea of God; he said actually that he felt his work was a lot more meaningful there than in other places because many people he met had not already been "innoculated" with a weaker version of Christian thought before.

I would not call that blind faith atheism, I would call it never having been introduced to a god. It is very difficult to have blind faith atheism.

[Dyakovo]

"Them", "they"? Since when am I more than one person? Nor is atheism "leftist" (or rightist), what with it not being an economic ideology (or an ideology at all for that matter).
Additionally, I'm quite open-minded. Present me with verifiable evidence is all I ask, and since no religion can manage that I've no use for it.

Evidence verifiable within a rather close-minded concept of evidence, verification and presentation; not that you are wrong to hold to those precepts. There is a lot to be said for a purely empirical system of knowledge, it has it's own faults, at it's core, but so does mine.

To elaborate atheism usually derives from a naturalistic world view, as that is ultimately all that we can empirically prove; but by omitting the possibility of the supernatural, you can be blinded to what is I feel the superior explanatory power of it.

It is like investigating a death but omitting the possibility of murder; it doesn't matter if the man was hit several times on the head with a hammer, if you refuse to allow for an explanation except by natural causes you can be left with a much more improbable scenario, that is exact to the evidence; i.e. that windstorm came in and blew the man abruptly into the hammer several times or something to that effect.

Though I more meant to reply to agree with you. I do not consider atheism particularly locked with any one ideology, it is true that conservatives and right-wing groups tend to be more religious, but they also tend to be more traditional in general. Neither side of the spectrum has the right to claim either atheism or Christianity belongs to them.

You clearly have no concept of what either "verifiable evidence" or "close-minded" mean.

[Republic of the Cristo]

How is it ignorant to believe that the law of cause and effect proves there is a God? Consider the following. Our Universe was created some long time ago in a moment of creation ( big bang, genesis, what ever) Something had to have caused this. If you are a believer in the Giant ball theory ( tell me if you are something else, because I know a lot of people find this really sketchy) then what created the matter and energy existing in said ball? Lets say you discovered an event to have caused this, what caused it? How far back will you have to go until you do eventually find a beginning? From the sequence of events that have thus far appeared, it would seem that the Universe is seemingly eternal. Meaning that it has no beginning or end, therefore breaking the law of cause and effect and being dubbed " supernatural" Which I know you hate so much

the law of cause and effect is not a thing. The rest of your post is special pleading, equivocation, and false dichotomies. Consider the following:

The universe exists. By your (immensly flawed) logic, it must have been caused.
You believe god exists. By your (immensely flawed) logic, god must have been caused.

You have two responses:
your argument sucks(it does, you can just admit it or not)
not admit your argument sucks, and anything you come up with to special plead god as uncaused I'll just strikeout god and put "the universe" in, which is necessarily as at least as good an explanation as for god.

Your move.

I do not believe God was caused, as I believe that he is eternal. So tell me then, by your OBVIOUSLY ENLIGHTENED LOGIC, how you believe existence began if it was not created.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Blind faith is indeed the real danger.

It is why I have no issue with most of the Christians I discuss things in depth with, because most do not follow their religion in blind faith. It is because they admit they could very easily be wrong and others be right and so they do not force their views on how people should act or believe onto others.

Blind faith is why we had witch burnings, it is why we have abortion clinic bombings, it is why we have ISIS and any of those other fundamentalist groups, it is why places like North Korea exist.

I think a lot of that has less to do with blind faith as much as it is with maturation. Though you're right that blindly refusing factual information (assuming it's indeed factual) on the basis on faith is more detrimental than helpful, but the fact that some purposefully release false information just to taint one side a certain way goes to show that we're collectively incredibly immature and are far more interested in playing 'gotcha games' than getting to the cold, hard truth. Every side has these kind of people too.

[Big Jim P]

It's worth considering that with the slow reversal of fortunes between Christianity and Atheism, we are soon going to reach a point where there are going to be those with frank blind faith in atheism.

Indeed, when I was studying in Switzerland, I had made a friend of a German pastor who had evangelized in what was formerly East Germany; where so many people were apathetically atheist that he had to start at the ground level of just introducing the idea of God; he said actually that he felt his work was a lot more meaningful there than in other places because many people he met had not already been "innoculated" with a weaker version of Christian thought before.

I would not call that blind faith atheism, I would call it never having been introduced to a god. It is very difficult to have blind faith atheism.

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

[Neutraligon]

the law of cause and effect is not a thing. The rest of your post is special pleading, equivocation, and false dichotomies. Consider the following:

The universe exists. By your (immensly flawed) logic, it must have been caused.
You believe god exists. By your (immensely flawed) logic, god must have been caused.

You have two responses:
your argument sucks(it does, you can just admit it or not)
not admit your argument sucks, and anything you come up with to special plead god as uncaused I'll just strikeout god and put "the universe" in, which is necessarily as at least as good an explanation as for god.

Your move.

I do not believe God was caused, as I believe that he is eternal. So tell me then, by your OBVIOUSLY ENLIGHTENED LOGIC, how you believe existence began if it was not created.

As I said it would be better to take this to a different thread.

[The Merchant Republics]

It's worth considering that with the slow reversal of fortunes between Christianity and Atheism, we are soon going to reach a point where there are going to be those with frank blind faith in atheism.

Indeed, when I was studying in Switzerland, I had made a friend of a German pastor who had evangelized in what was formerly East Germany; where so many people were apathetically atheist that he had to start at the ground level of just introducing the idea of God; he said actually that he felt his work was a lot more meaningful there than in other places because many people he met had not already been "innoculated" with a weaker version of Christian thought before.

I would not call that blind faith atheism, I would call it never having been introduced to a god. It is very difficult to have blind faith atheism.

Yeah, I suppose you are right to object to that. Blind faith has to be challenged first and then rendered blind, so I suppose I was confusing blind faith with merely unchallenged atheism.

[Dyakovo]

I'll start with the fact I am a Christian.

With science having such hard evidence that non-believers throw in our faces and all we can come back with is "Well the bible says you're going to Hell for that" I could see why Christianity is losing members. Not to mention how militant some Christians get toward anything not Christian. My grandma for instance, who I love to death, yelled at me for believing the Earth is billions of years old, not 6,000 as the Bible hints. I mean, humanity is older than the Earth by her crazy ass facts. What keeps me holding on to my faith is the belief that when I die I will wind up somewhere nice. Do I believe the big bang? Yes, it's hard not to. Do I believe in Noah's ark? No. It sounds like a fairy tale to me. Will I raise my child to believe in God? I'm not sure. At this point, I believe in God but almost no other part of Christianity. I think any religion is just a set of morals to live by to make the world a better place, but most Christians I know only believe that if it doesn't involve any other ideology. "Do unto others as you would wish others do unto you... unless they are non-believers" <--- That is what most of the Christians I know go by, even if they wont admit it.

Long story short, I'm not surprised and I'm not upset. Christianity needs to cope with the times, much like the Republican party (of which I am a member). The times they are a changin'.

Actually, Science is not the reason why more and more people are loosing faith. have you ever had a talk with your run of the mill Agnostic or atheist or what ever? They all say the don't believe in God, but for really no reason other than it is hard to live up to that standard. Most aren't going to say " Oh well, I find that with the scientific evidence of evolution, and the fact that we have generally well backed theories regarding how the big bang occurred..." No, this is not a common response. Most will say " Why should I? What has he done for me?" Or something of the variant. Also, just because some on is a YEC, doesn't mean their a crazy fundie. Most Christians do believe this.

Just to throw this out there, I am a theocratic fundamentalist. LET THE HATE ROLL IN!

Absolute Bullshit.
My being an atheist is not in anyway because of "christianity setting a standard that is hard to live up to". It is for 2 very simple reasons:
1: There is no verifiable evidence for the existence of any deity.
2: I was never indoctrinated as a child.

[Neutraligon]

I would not call that blind faith atheism, I would call it never having been introduced to a god. It is very difficult to have blind faith atheism.

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

I am...iffy on that statement. Humans tend to anthropomorphize things and give them intent. We also tend to have a good imagination and the ability to think about what if. It is hardly a surprise that given those facts we form a god or gods.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

It is why I have no issue with most of the Christians I discuss things in depth with, because most do not follow their religion in blind faith. It is because they admit they could very easily be wrong and others be right and so they do not force their views on how people should act or believe onto others.

Blind faith is why we had witch burnings, it is why we have abortion clinic bombings, it is why we have ISIS and any of those other fundamentalist groups, it is why places like North Korea exist.

It's worth considering that with the slow reversal of fortunes between Christianity and Atheism, we are soon going to reach a point where there are going to be those with frank blind faith in atheism.

Indeed, when I was studying in Switzerland, I had made a friend of a German pastor who had evangelized in what was formerly East Germany; where so many people were apathetically atheist that he had to start at the ground level of just introducing the idea of God; he said actually that he felt his work was a lot more meaningful there than in other places because many people he met had not already been "innoculated" with a weaker version of Christian thought before.

Faith in atheism is a logical impossibility. But the apathy is a real issue, it's why the liberal churches are losing people. They've not been indoctrinated very effectively, they don't have a system of apologetics built up, so actually convincing them is a matter of evidence and a good dialogue, because most atheists essentially deconverted themselves, they are capable of forming those arguments. Once atheism really becomes 'the thing', the general population of atheists will not be as capable of defending that position on logical ground.

But they'll never be as bad at is as a casual religious apologist.

[Big Jim P]

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

I am...iffy on that statement. Humans tend to anthropomorphize things and give them intent. We also tend to have a good imagination and the ability to think about what if. It is hardly a surprise that given those facts we form a god or gods.

Point noted.

[Imperial Esplanade]

I would not call that blind faith atheism, I would call it never having been introduced to a god. It is very difficult to have blind faith atheism.

I would also point out that it is a good piece of evidence for atheism being the default state of humanity.

I think you're assuming quite a bit here.

If there is a God, I'm fairly certain atheism wouldn't be the default state of humanity.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

the law of cause and effect is not a thing. The rest of your post is special pleading, equivocation, and false dichotomies. Consider the following:

The universe exists. By your (immensly flawed) logic, it must have been caused.
You believe god exists. By your (immensely flawed) logic, god must have been caused.

You have two responses:
your argument sucks(it does, you can just admit it or not)
not admit your argument sucks, and anything you come up with to special plead god as uncaused I'll just strikeout god and put "the universe" in, which is necessarily as at least as good an explanation as for god.

Your move.

I do not believe God the universe was caused, as I believe that he it is eternal. So tell me then, by your OBVIOUSLY ENLIGHTENED LOGIC, how you believe existence began if it was not created.

Doing what I said I'd do. So, where is there room for god in your argument, now? Because i'm not seeing any gaps for him to hide.