Ranger
Registered: 05/20/09
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #46 |
Wonderer,
Thanks for a wonderfully honest response. It helps me to see your viewpoint better, and to further think through your argument (or inference).
I would make a few comments, but I think my part of the discussion has mostly come to an end.
1. I'm not sure that it follows that since the study shows older science professors are more likely atheist that the inference can be made that with increased knowledge one sheds their theism. This may be the case, but there are plenty of other possibilities as well, and in the absence of past studies we can't make any assumptions based on trends.
At best, the conjecture is speculative based on your personal experience, the experience of friends and atheist "testimonies" to this point. But, like I said before, even if true, I'm not sure it has a bearing on theistic belief unless people only hold theistic beliefs based on gaps that science closes (more on that below).
2. Whereas "non-belief" is clearly rose from 1990 to 2005 in the United States, I would disagree with your claim about worldwide "non-belief" as the fastest growing religion. Outside of Zuckerman's heavily biased analysis, most sociologists (atheist and theist) continue to claim that God is back. The growth of "nonreligious" from 0.2% in 1900 to 14.4% in 1970 is very impressive indeed. But since 1970 though, the total percentage has slowed in growth. By 1990 the percentage had dropped to 13.4%, and on average "nonreligious" worldwide lost 500,000 per year in the 90s. In 1995 the worldwide percentage 13%, in 2000 it was 12.7% and in 2008 it was 11.4% (according to the WCD and IEWR).
Hard atheism has not fared better despite the press in America and Europe. Climbing from 0.1% to 4.5% between 1900 and 1970 is impressive, but it had dropped to 2.8% by 1990, 2.5% in 2000 and in 2008 worldwide atheism was estimated at 2.2%.
Why the decline? My perspective is that the reality is that China, the USSR, etc. were not nearly as irreligious as suspected. I still think they are overly counted in this regard. Having lived much of the past few years in China, I can confirm from personal experience that most "atheists" I know are firm believers in afterlife (including reincarnation), the eternal existence of ancestors and a supernatural realm. They are by no means what any Western person would consider an atheist.
With that said, I also believe that the Christian numbers are heavily inflated as well with many nations still considering infant baptism as an indicator of religious affiliation. There are countless millions of "casual Christians" who are in function and perspective deistic at best. Nevertheless, the recent work by Jenkins, Wooldridge, Mickelthwait, Noll, et. al. seems to conclusively show that worldwide religion is growing in various ways despite Zuckerman's seemingly lone claims.
But really, even if the world were conclusively 90% one way or the other, that wouldn't prove a thing in regards to the truth of the matter...and I'm pretty sure we both agree on that point.
3. I'm pretty confident that not too few theists would be in agreement that god of the gaps reasoning is faulty and should be avoided whenever possible.
Thanks for the cordial exchange. |
| | fkeefe
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 858
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #47 |
Quote: Originally Posted by Ranger
Wonderer,
Thanks for a wonderfully honest response. It helps me to see your viewpoint better, and to further think through your argument (or inference).
I would make a few comments, but I think my part of the discussion has mostly come to an end.
1. I'm not sure that it follows that since the study shows older science professors are more likely atheist that the inference can be made that with increased knowledge one sheds their theism. This may be the case, but there are plenty of other possibilities as well, and in the absence of past studies we can't make any assumptions based on trends.
At best, the conjecture is speculative based on your personal experience, the experience of friends and atheist "testimonies" to this point. But, like I said before, even if true, I'm not sure it has a bearing on theistic belief unless people only hold theistic beliefs based on gaps that science closes (more on that below).
2. Whereas "non-belief" is clearly rose from 1990 to 2005 in the United States, I would disagree with your claim about worldwide "non-belief" as the fastest growing religion. Outside of Zuckerman's heavily biased analysis, most sociologists (atheist and theist) continue to claim that God is back. The growth of "nonreligious" from 0.2% in 1900 to 14.4% in 1970 is very impressive indeed. But since 1970 though, the total percentage has slowed in growth. By 1990 the percentage had dropped to 13.4%, and on average "nonreligious" worldwide lost 500,000 per year in the 90s. In 1995 the worldwide percentage 13%, in 2000 it was 12.7% and in 2008 it was 11.4% (according to the WCD and IEWR).
Hard atheism has not fared better despite the press in America and Europe. Climbing from 0.1% to 4.5% between 1900 and 1970 is impressive, but it had dropped to 2.8% by 1990, 2.5% in 2000 and in 2008 worldwide atheism was estimated at 2.2%.
Why the decline? My perspective is that the reality is that China, the USSR, etc. were not nearly as irreligious as suspected. I still think they are overly counted in this regard. Having lived much of the past few years in China, I can confirm from personal experience that most "atheists" I know are firm believers in afterlife (including reincarnation), the eternal existence of ancestors and a supernatural realm. They are by no means what any Western person would consider an atheist.
With that said, I also believe that the Christian numbers are heavily inflated as well with many nations still considering infant baptism as an indicator of religious affiliation. There are countless millions of "casual Christians" who are in function and perspective deistic at best. Nevertheless, the recent work by Jenkins, Wooldridge, Mickelthwait, Noll, et. al. seems to conclusively show that worldwide religion is growing in various ways despite Zuckerman's seemingly lone claims.
But really, even if the world were conclusively 90% one way or the other, that wouldn't prove a thing in regards to the truth of the matter...and I'm pretty sure we both agree on that point.
3. I'm pretty confident that not too few theists would be in agreement that god of the gaps reasoning is faulty and should be avoided whenever possible.
Thanks for the cordial exchange.
Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents (Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective.) - Christianity: 2.1 billion
- Islam: 1.5 billion
- Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
- Hinduism: 900 million
- Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
- Buddhism: 376 million
- primal-indigenous: 300 million
- African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
- Sikhism: 23 million
- Juche: 19 million
- Spiritism: 15 million
- Judaism: 14 million
- Baha'i: 7 million
- Jainism: 4.2 million
- Shinto: 4 million
- Cao Dai: 4 million
- Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
- Tenrikyo: 2 million
- Neo-Paganism: 1 million
- Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
- Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
- Scientology: 500 thousand
16% are non religious with at least half is "theistic" but non religious (whatever that means) From world religion statistics
__________________
fk |
| | Ranger
Registered: 05/20/09
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #48 |
fkeefe,
Two points:
1. Adherents isn't the best source of information on this topic. It's better to consult databases, encyclopedias, etc. which deal with the data. For instance, most consider the World Christian Database to be the standard. It puts current "non-religious" and atheist worldwide at around 14%.
2. The information at Adherents is based on Zuckerman's analysis from the Cambridge Companion to Atheism (which I mentioned above). Many sociologists consider his work to be somewhat skewed in favor of non-religious, but it still shows a decline from 1970 when atheists made up 19% of the total population (when combined) according to the WCD.
This is a very confusing category for analyzing, since "nonreligious" can mean anything from an atheist to a fundamentalist Bible thumper who worships at home, but refuses to associate with Catholics, Protestants or any other religion. Here is what the site you quote says about the statistics for this category:
Quote: Different type of data collection methodologies using different types of questions showed a consistent pattern: In most countries only a tiny number of people (zero to a fraction of 1 percent) will answer "atheism" or "atheist" when asked an open-ended question about what their religious preference. A slightly larger number of people will answer "yes" if asked pointedly if they are an atheist. A slightly larger number than that will answer "no" when asked if they believe in any type of God, deities, or Higher Power. A slightly larger number answer "no" when asked simply if they "believe in God" (omitting wording indicating more nebulous, less anthropomorphic conceptions of divinity). Finally, a larger number of people answer "none" or "non-religious" when asked asked an open-ended queston about what their religious preference is. Although figures vary for each country, average numbers indicate that roughly half of the people who self-identify as "nonreligious" also answer "yes" when asked if they believe in God or a Higher Power.
Very confusing since roughly half believe in a god.
But, this is wildly off-topic and I shouldn't have pointed out the conflict with wonderer's point since it would easily detract from the discussion which is "evidences for Atheism." As stated above, 99.99% adherence to atheism or theism wouldn't argue for the truth of the proposition "gods do not exist." |
| | wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,560
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #49 |
Quote: Originally Posted by Ranger
Wonderer,
Thanks for a wonderfully honest response. It helps me to see your viewpoint better, and to further think through your argument (or inference).
And thank you for providing Gavagai with an example of intellectual integrity, and the ability to earn respect. I knew based on past empirical observations, and your first post on this thread, that you would come through for me.
I don't have time to respond to more right now, but hopefully I'll have the opportunity to get back to some of these things soon.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| | Gavagai
Registered: 09/05/08
Posts: 408
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #50 |
Dear Wonderer,
I am sorry if what I am about to ask reveals a lack of intellectual integrity on my part, and my apologies in advance if it personally offends you. But if you don't mind me asking, would you please be so kind as to provide the reasons behind your rejection of the study done by Ecklund et al.? Since you made a claim that contradicts this study, namely, "scientific understanding tends to be toxic to theistic beliefs," I thought it'd be a good idea to find out why you reject the study's findings. Have you surveyed your own set of scientists to arrive at different conclusions? Which ones and which universities? What specific questions did you ask them? Has your study been published and if so where can one find it? Did you work with a team of professional sociologists who could peer-review your work or were you working alone? If you haven't conducted a study to arrive at a different conclusion, then on what basis do you reject Ecklund's work? In your review and analysis of her work, where precisely did she and her team of sociologists go wrong, and why?
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of my inquiry.
Sincerely and with respect,
Gavagai
__________________
"I am not an atheist." - Albert Einstein |
| | wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,560
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #51 |
Quote: Originally Posted by Gavagai
Dear Wonderer,
I am sorry if what I am about to ask reveals a lack of intellectual integrity on my part, and my apologies in advance if it personally offends you. But if you don't mind me asking, would you please be so kind as to provide the reasons behind your rejection of the study done by Ecklund et al.? Since you made a claim that contradicts this study, namely, "scientific understanding tends to be toxic to theistic beliefs," I thought it'd be a good idea to find out why you reject the study's findings.
Ok, let's take a look at the quote from Ecklund that you provided a few posts back, with some emphasis added:
Quote: Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform.
The bolded portion might be rewritten as, "do somewhat support", without seriously altering the factual content of Ecklund's statement. That Ecklund framed her statement as she did, only suggests rhetorical purpose to her phrasing, not contradiction of my statement.
At this point, if you would like to demonstrate that you have intellectual integrity, you will either present a statement by Ecklund which does directly contradict my statement, or admit that you were wrong in claiming, that Ecklund's study contradicts my statement.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| | wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,560
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #52 |
Hello Ranger,
I don't know if you are familiar with Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism", but with much help from jbejon*, I have developed (a sketch of) an argument which warrants dismissing belief in our rationality WRT theological matters.
Post #84 in this thread contains the clearest explanation of my argument, though there is substantial background matter in earlier posts.
This is of course, not an argument which proves the nonexistence of God. Rather, I contend that based on scientific findings that show we exist as the result of evolution, trusting our cognitive faculties, on theological matters, cannot be justified.
I would love to hear your response to my argument, and I hope you will forgive its sloppiness.
*
It happens to be the case that I have been diagnosed with a learning disability. A consequence of this 'learning disability' is a certain degree of organizational impairment, and difficulty with putting what is for me, 'a multidimensional intuition', into the linear form required by language. I consider it unlikely, that without jbejon' acting as a wonderfully incisive foil, I would have been able to express that argument. (Inasmuch as it can be said that I've managed to express it so far.)
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| | ChristianJR4
Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 276
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #53 |
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
- How does the fact that theists are utterly unable to support their claim (supposing this is even true) make it unlikely that God (as in the basic theistic concept of God) exists?
- How does inconsistency of beliefs make it unlikely that God exists?
- How do outright idiotic beliefs make it unlikely that God exists?
- How does "and so on" make it unlikely that God exists?
What? I think you're dragging this off somewhere else.
My atheism is validated because of the total and utter lack of evidence to suggest that gods exist, the inconsistency (and incoherence) of standard god claims, the clearly nonsensical baggage that tends to go alongside such beliefs and so on.
It wasn't a statement that I am instantly under the rather pathetic notion of having the onus to go about disproving the existence of any entity you make claim to.
I assert that theists inability to provide actual evidence, the inconsistency of theists beliefs etc put me in a valid and firm position to say: "I don't believe your claims".
Hope that's been cleared up.
I think Morley brings up a good point snakey. The failure of good arguments for Theism doesn't prove or show that God doesn't exist. Imagine a supporter of evolution bringing a bunch of totally horrible and unscientific arguments to support evolutionary theory (I imagine this was somewhat the case a few centuries ago). Could we then conclude based on the failure of those arguments that evolution is not true? No, we couldn't. Indeed, evolution could still be true even given the bad arguments made in support of it. Theists may have bad arguments, but that doesn't justify the view that God doesn't exist. For all you know, there could be better arguments out there or new scientific discoveries waiting to solved that support God's existence. The conclusion therefore is that absence of evidence or the failure of arguments doesn't support the opposite conclusion. You need to bring counter arguments for the opposite to be true.
|
| | wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,560
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #54 |
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: Originally Posted by Gavagai
Dear Wonderer,
I am sorry if what I am about to ask reveals a lack of intellectual integrity on my part, and my apologies in advance if it personally offends you. But if you don't mind me asking, would you please be so kind as to provide the reasons behind your rejection of the study done by Ecklund et al.? Since you made a claim that contradicts this study, namely, "scientific understanding tends to be toxic to theistic beliefs," I thought it'd be a good idea to find out why you reject the study's findings.
Ok, let's take a look at the quote from Ecklund that you provided a few posts back, with some emphasis added:
Quote: Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform.
The bolded portion might be rewritten as, "do somewhat support", without seriously altering the factual content of Ecklund's statement. That Ecklund framed her statement as she did, only suggests rhetorical purpose to her phrasing, not contradiction of my statement.
At this point, if you would like to demonstrate that you have intellectual integrity, you will either present a statement by Ecklund which does directly contradict my statement, or admit that you were wrong in claiming, that Ecklund's study contradicts my statement.
...Awful quiet there G. Been scouring Eklund's paper?
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| | Gavagai
Registered: 09/05/08
Posts: 408
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #55 |
Dear sir,
No, I don't have access to her paper. I'll get it later. But I can tell you right now that you're dead wrong. For example:
Quote: Originally Posted by Wonderer
Scientific understanding tends to be toxic to theistic beliefs
Quote: Originally Posted by Ecklund
The assumption that being a scientist leads to less religious belief is untenable
Moreover, you have provided no reason to think that the bolded portion in the statement:
Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform.
can be rewritten as "do somewhat support." You are grasping at straws and abusing her research.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gavagai
__________________
"I am not an atheist." - Albert Einstein |
| | Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,398
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #56 |
Quote: The failure of good arguments for Theism doesn't prove or show that God doesn't exist.
I don't recall saying it does, (it would be weird if I had given that I've spent a great deal of time saying a person can't disprove the existence of entities).
As with Allah, Santa, Lenny, El Chupacabra, Mothmen and Bigfoot I am under no onus whatsoever to disprove the claims nor to take such claims seriously until presented with some actual evidence.
Quote: You need to bring counter arguments for the opposite to be true
Incorrect. Something is true or not true whether people make arguments or just dismiss your claims as worthless until such time that you are able to present some actual evidence.
I can't do that for you.
|
| | Gavagai
Registered: 09/05/08
Posts: 408
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #57 |
^ So then there's no evidence for atheism?
Thank you for the concession.
__________________
"I am not an atheist." - Albert Einstein |
| | Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,398
| | rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,370
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #59 |
Ranger, I read your posts in this thread and was pleased to find them to be respectful of the atheist and to treat him as a human of equal status with yourself--something that is in very short supply not only on these forums but in Christianity as a whole, beginning with the Bible. See for example Ps. 53:1 and Rom. 1:28-32. The Bible does not leave room for the possibility that a person may need to, for the sake of conscience, give up belief in the supernatural.
I wish to respond to a few comments in the following post.
Quote: Originally Posted by Ranger
Understanding ANE texts and culture should lead one toward a more metaphorical (even allegorical) understanding of many HB passages. This is actually a move in the right direction in regards to those seeking to understand the text in its original context.
Agreed. But what is today considered allegorical or metaphorical is a very far cry from the way people like Hillel (Jewish scholar around Jesus' time if I have it straight)--and therefore Jesus (if he existed) and apostles--thought, is it not?
We are born into the post-Enlightenment mentality where cause-and-effect/black-and-white linear thinking is taken for granted. When we talk about allegory or metaphor, normally we mean some aspect of substituting "this" for "that." I struggle to get into the pre-Enlightenment mind-set but I do not get the impression that this is how they thought at all.
Quote:
I won't recount my full story here, but let me abbreviate it by saying that I went to college with a copy of a YEC commentary on Genesis as one of the ten books that I kept beside my bed. It wasn't studying biology, geology, physics of any of the natural sciences that led me to reject YEC. It was reading Genesis in Hebrew, learning to read Akkadian texts, studying the ancient cultures and getting a better perspective by what Genesis 1 intends to say, why it says the things it says, etc. In my grad/post-grad studies, I found much the same to be true of my friends. We are all still passionate Christians (mostly evangelical), but we have found that reading those texts metaphorically to be the end result of being honest to/with the text...which is what evangelical Christians are supposed to do.
Thus, my study of the text itself led me to interpret the text more metaphorically. Does that equate with a more liberal view of the passage? Maybe, but that's a relative label, and in this case, it also equates with a more biblical view of the text in my opinion.
I applaud you for adding "in my opinion." Thanks for sharing some of your story. I come from a horse and buggy Mennonite community. There were also a number of car Mennonite communities in the same geographical community. In other words, there were at least four different kinds of Mennonites living on farms next to each other where I grew up (2 car and 2 horse and buggy) and all of us children went to the same school during the week. On Sundays, all of our families went to different churches and none of us ever attended the other's churches or socials. There were jokes about everyone driving in different directions at the intersection (on their way to their separate churches) but heading to the same place (heaven).
The confusing part for me was that everyone seemed equally sincere and equally sure that they had the correct understanding of what God really meant in the Bible. Yet they couldn't all be right because many of the different interpretations were mutually exclusive.
Also, I found out that calling it "interpretation" was taboo; it was what God said--not an "interpretation." The person who told me this was less than a year older than me but he was a minister and he did have a penis, qualifications I lacked. Possibly these two items helped him to know things I didn't but I seriously doubt it. I was a Christian seeking with all my heart to find an honest way to remain one. And the best he could do was chide me for using a wrong word.
By now I've got a degree in systematic theology--probably not as much education as you do--only Masters level. And I got it at a Lutheran seminary so I learned even more ways of "interpreting" the Bible than this Mennonite deacon knew about. And yes, "interpret" is a valid way of stating it. I also conclude that "opinion" is the only thing guiding correct understanding of the Biblical text, unless one wishes to understand it via the scientific method the same as any other ancient texts such as Homer.
I was taught from childhood that Christianity is supposed to be a simple religion for children and slaves. About halfway through my two-year degree in theology I was still desperately struggling with my failure to find answers to life-long burning questions about central tenets of the Christian faith. Some of the texts we had to read were heavy reading and I had been unable to follow all the concepts. It occurred to me that I might have missed The Answer, that it might have been hiding in there somewhere and I just wasn't smart enough to find it.
Wearily I asked myself whether I had to wade through all those texts again in order to be sure. Then it hit me: Christianity is supposed to be such a simple faith, simple enough for children and uneducated slaves to understand; I should not need years and years of formal education in order to understand its central tenets. The Answer does not exist.
The answer I had been seeking regarded salvation. Another key question regarded evidence for God's existence. One day a few months later, I just "knew" that God did not exist. I had never in all my life ever found the slightest bit of evidence for the supernatural but I had done my best to believe because I was made to understand that God did exist. And that hell was real, just waiting to swallow up bad girls and unbelieving atheists.
With those two items out of the way I realized that there was no legitimate way by which I could identify as Christian anymore. That was quite a frightening realization. What was I if I wasn't a Christian???
Not long thereafter I found the exChristian.net forums.
Quote:
But why go so far as to reject the very God who you (hopefully) believed created rationality? You claim that your scientific understanding ultimately led you to reject God completely. What scientific evidence is there that all of us theists are missing? Where are those evidences for atheism? What are those strong arguments which compel someone to utterly reject theism? Is a possible correlation, contra the current evidence, between scientific education and atheism really the best argument for atheism?
I'm not sure what you mean by the "God who created rationality." Things are rational because they are in accordance with the way the universe works. "The universe" includes the human brain and intelligence, emotion, and perception. I imagine reality might be experienced somewhat differently by a dog or horse or fish or insect than it is by a human being. However, I can communicate most easily with other humans so I choose the human experience as my basis for understanding reality.
Human intelligence applied to the relentless study and examination of the universe as it appears to human perception across time and space has brought us to the understanding that all that exists could have logically come into existence without the word or existence of a supernatural entity. Logic dictates that this is by far the most rational conclusion, i.e. that it makes no sense whatsoever to imagine that a supernatural entity spoke a word and in that way brought the universe into existence, as some holy books claim, when we have evidence that a natural means was possible.
Quote: I hope that you can see that in the absence of better arguments than this, why most people would continue to be theists.
Sorry, sir, I haven't a clue what evidence you see for theism. Possibly you can provide the evidence for God's existence? I have not been pushing much for it anymore the last while because people on here were getting really pissed by my demand and I was told there is no evidence for God's existence. That agrees with everything I can discover.
Why, in the total absence of evidence, a person continues to believe and arrange their life as though there were a God watching them with rewards and punishments is totally beyond my comprehension--unless they fear men more than god. I suspect this to be the under-lying reason in most cases because it is seriously unpopular in our land to be atheist. So much so that we have many a discussion on how to "break the bad news" to friends and family, or how to answer the question, "What church do you go to?"
We know that it might cost our job or physical safety to "come out," depending where we live or who we are related or married to. People have been divorced, deprived of their children, and kicked out of their homes for deconverting. And they deconverted out of deep conviction, out of love for truth and honesty, for the sake of personal integrity.
Thus, my answer to the question of this thread should be obvious:
- Christianity, the only theist religion with which I am intimately familiar, does not provide adequate explanation for central tenets to make it a tenable explanation for reality as it is experienced by humans. Nor have I yet found any other religion that, upon close inspection, does better.
- I can find no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the supernatural or God. For most things in life, if we search long enough and fail to find the object of our search, we are justified in giving up that the thing can be found. I apply the same argument to invisible and imperceptible entities such as Gods.
- Natural explanations exist for everything humans at one time thought was God, so I think it is safe to assume that natural explanations exist for the few things we have not yet figured out.
I realize that I do not make an exhaustive argument in this little post for the nonexistence of God; it would take an entire book for that and few people would accept it even then--theists and atheists alike. However, Christians are strong on testimony. As such, people here should be fine with accepting my testimony of having searched for evidence of God and finding none. Obviously, it is impossible to believe in something for which there is zero evidence, given that belief means to accept that which it makes sense to think is correct based on the available evidence.
For the record: I did not reject God. God failed to let himself be found. Consequently, in the name of honesty and personal integrity, I was forced to change my personal statement and identity to something that more accurately reflected reality.
************
Ranger, I also read your post about the increase of religion in recent decades. That would agree with my personal observation of society. I have been puzzled by popular claims made on both sides (the atheist-agnostic group vs the conservative Christians) with each claiming that their side is gaining in numbers. I don't know how anyone can do a statistical study on the topic.
With the advent of internet access, major social changes are taking place with each side using the new technology for the propagation of its own message. Very many people have deconverted due to the access to information on the Bible and biblical times/early Christianity that had previously been unavailable to them. I think this gives the atheist-agnostic group the idea that their numbers are increasing significantly.
I personally had never been comfortable with belief in an entity for which there is zero evidence, but I was born in the middle of the twentieth century long before the internet. Access to exChristian greatly aided my deconversion in the fall of 2006.
However, the internet also makes religious information easily available to people seeking "deeper answers" than they had been able to find in public education and their secular life, etc. Fundamentalist and evangelical communities take full advantage of cutting edge technology to spread their messages. (I find the most advanced technology--which I normally don't have--for listening to sermons and lectures, etc. appears first on their websites; for the most part, secular organizations use mainstream conventional tools.)
Megachurches stream their sermons and music online for anyone who wishes to participate any hour of day or night anywhere in the world. If I am not mistaken (and I have studied this in a number of courses), conservative religion across the board around the world has been gaining strength in numbers and politics throughout the last quarter of the twentieth century. This is especially the case in the Christian and Muslim world; I am not sure about the Hindu and East Asian religions. The only religion I have studied in any depth is Christianity.
Ranger, thank you for your comments re Adherents.com. I have been using it for stats because it is the only source I know. Can you provide a link to the sources you recommend? Thank you.
__________________
Forums Website
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| | Gavagai
Registered: 09/05/08
Posts: 408
| |
|
