Study: Religion may become extinct in nine nations

[Colpy]

See.....cons and science...don't go togetther.

It dosen't make me feel superior at all.

So got any facts for me?

Proof?

Evidence?

Anything other than words written in a book?

Here's more......

YouTube - 2 -- History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 2)

You can't comment on any of it...so you throw out some homilies that you learned in Sunday School.

Do you even go to church?

Which of the many Gods do you believe?

Which one is real?

Are Jews imperfect Christians?

Children believe in Santa because they are told he's real based on nothing at all.....then they grow up and take evil science classes.

Want something funny to watch....this is the competition to real science......

YouTube - BBC report on Creationist Museum

Jesus land strikes again.

Hooo doggy.....I stand corrected.....:lol:

YouTube - Red State Update: Night at the Creation Museum

I have no more proof than you do......nor to I have your arrogance on the subject.

Seems to me I am not the blind believer with a twist of fanaticism in this debate........

 

[YukonJack]

Colpy said, responding to Avro's ignorant post, above:

"I have no more proof than you do......nor to I have your arrogance on the subject.
Seems to me I am not the blind believer with a twist of fanaticism in this debate........"

You nailed the ba$tard, Colpy! Congratulations!

 

[Corduroy]

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Logic.

Accidental creation is, to my mind, impossible, and when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

So you would base your belief on a measured amount of faith and logic? You start with faith, the belief in something without evidence, but make sure that whatever it is you choose to believe without evidence is logical. Have I got that right?

 

[Colpy]

So you would base your belief on a measured amount of faith and logic? You start with faith, the belief in something without evidence, but make sure that whatever it is you choose to believe without evidence is logical. Have I got that right?

More or less........

More simply put, if there are but two choices (God or no God), and the leap of faith required to accept one hypothesis is simply too much for one's intellect, then logically, they must accept the other as truth.

Although I need to argue one small point....in my not so humble opinion, the very existence of creation and all its wonders is in itself evidence of the existence of God. Not conclusive, mind you.....but that is where faith comes in.

 

[petros]

So which definition of God/god are all of you basing your arguments on?

Who has the evidence of a precise definition of god?

Silly people trying to be like us gods. Fools.

 

[gerryh]

You have the patience of Job, Colpy. Cudos.

 

[DaSleeper]

You have the patience of Job, Colpy. Cudos.

Yup..he does
Should send him a copy of this book......

 

[pastafarian]

Religion vs intelligence:

2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]

from Wikipedia

Religion vs educational achievement:

1975, Norman Poythress studied a sample of 234 US college undergraduates, grouping them into relatively homogeneous religious types based on the similarity of their religious beliefs, and compared their personality characteristics. He found that "Literally-oriented religious Believers did not differ significantly from Mythologically-oriented Believers on measures of intelligence, authoritarianism, or racial prejudice. Religious Believers as a group were found to be significantly less intelligent and more authoritarian than religious Skeptics." He used SAT's as a measure of intelligence for this study.[13]
A weak negative correlation between education and Christian fundamentalism was found by Burton et al. (1989), a small study comparing the religious beliefs and educational achievements of white, Protestant residents of Delaware County, Indiana. Contrary to the researchers' expectations, fundamentalist converts were not less educated people.[14]

Intelligence & Religion


Educational levels & denomination | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine


Here is some evidence. For those who think in terms of "proof", this is not "proof". Only philosphy and mathematics deal in proof. If anyone cares, I do not think this is evidence that all religious people are stupid or ignorant or that atheist or agnostics are all intelligent. I think that intelligent people are less likely to believe in things for which they have no evidence other than their "feelings" or the pronouncements of auhtorities. I think that lacking in education and experience decreases the tendency to be skeptical. I think a very good case can be made that skepticism is a hallmark of intelligence. I also think that regions in which there is pronounced economic inequality are more likely to produce literalistic interpretation of religious texts, blind obedience to authoritarian politicians and general intolerance. This has been documented (see a book called the "Spirit Level") and is almost surely more important factor than IQ.

For those unacustomed to critical thought, I will repeat the (true) cliche: "Correlation is not causation". That being so, I will still ask: Can any of you who are rankled by the above produce any evidence supporting the notion that atheism is inversely correlated with intelligence or education, or that as we move from atheism to agnosticism to spirituality to religion to literalist religion, that positive correlations with either higher IQ, educational achievement or better social outcomes (e.g. lower crime, drug abuse or violence; better health) exist? I guess "no".

 

[Corduroy]

More or less........

More simply put, if there are but two choices (God or no God), and the leap of faith required to accept one hypothesis is simply too much for one's intellect, then logically, they must accept the other as truth.

So: there are two choices and neither have any evidence for them, hence the need for faith in believing in either, and the former choice (god) being the more logical of the two is the better choice.

I think we're clear, right?

So what makes you think that the universe happening "by accident" is illogical? And is it logical to believe something without evidence in the first place?

Although I need to argue one small point....in my not so humble opinion, the very existence of creation and all its wonders is in itself evidence of the existence of God. Not conclusive, mind you.....but that is where faith comes in.

The history of religious explanations suffers from a Bill O'Reilly effect. "Tides goes in tide goes out. Can't explain that." but when informed that the moon causes the tides "How'd the moon get there? Can't explain that." Unfortunately for Bill, religion has advanced a lot further than he has. Over the years, as natural phenomena are explained, God gets pushed further and further back. Maybe it's because we think we know so much now or because the religious got wise, but nowadays God has been pushed in to the realm of things that are impossible to know. "OK, God doesn't cause tides, but how did the moon get there?" is now "OK, we have natural explanations for a lot of things, but where did things come from?" Hypothesizing God is taking a step from the known into the unknown and as some want us to think, the unknowable. "We know the universe is here. It must have been caused by something we don't know." And that's perfectly fine. That's where scientists start when they want to learn how something works, but imagining what that is, completely fabricating the specified existence of something else to explain it, is not logical. Toss in faith to account for it? "We don't know what causes the tides. But the existence of tides is evidence for water sprites. Not conclusive, mind you, but that's where faith comes in."

 

[YukonJack]

A tenth country probably could be added: Hungary.

I was back a while ago, visiting my brother and sister. Went to the church that was built in the 13th century that I used to attend as a kid. It was virtually empty on Sunday. I recalled that it used to be full during the darkest days of Communism.

When my brother bitterly complained that, seeing the state of the country, God took His hand from Hungary, I had to tell him if there were fewer people in the abortion clinic, and more in the church, maybe God would think otherwise.

 

[Avro]

Faith is the last arguement of someone who has been defeated in the face of facts and evidence.

It's so difficult for some to think that when we die it is the end, oblivion and nothing.

It's difficult for some to think life has no real purpose other than to exist.

When the Sun consumes the earth in about a billion years no God will be around to see it because the creators of God will be ash.

If it gives you comfort in the face of death that's fine but I don't need a fairytale as a crutch from reality.

I have no more proof than you do......nor to I have your arrogance on the subject.

Seems to me I am not the blind believer with a twist of fanaticism in this debate........

Nice try, you base your belief on faith.

I base mine on facts, the ones you keep ignoring.

I'll ask you a question.

How old is the earth?

 

[gerryh]

Faith is the last arguement of someone who has been defeated in the face of facts and evidence.

It's so difficult for some to think that when we die it is the end, oblivion and nothing.

It's difficult for some to think life has no real purpose other than to exist.

When the Sun consumes the earth in about a billion years no God will be around to see it because the creators of God will be ash.

If it gives you comfort in the face of death that's fine but I don't need a fairytale as a crutch from reality.



Nice try, you base your belief on faith.

I base mine on facts, the ones you keep ignoring.

I'll ask you a question.

How old is the earth?

What does the age of the earth have to do with anything? You and others here, make it sound like it's an either or proposition. You either follow science or you follow God. Why not both? Why can't someone believe/accept the Big Bang Theory AND God?

 

[Corduroy]

If you want to say there is no evidence for either position, the most important question is who is making the positive claim and which claim is the default position. In other words, which position actually requires evidence for it. It seems obvious that theism is the positive claim and atheist is the default. In every possible philosophical question, save your own existence, the positive claim is the one that asserts something is true and the default is not true. But theists want to insist that God is self-evident and the default position by virtue of the universe existing and that atheists have the burden of proof. But that explanation (God exists because the universe exists) is not constructed in a way that is self-evident. It has a reason: "because the universe exists." What is self-evident in the claim is that the universe exist. That's it. You can't say something is self-evident because of something else. That makes it not self-evident.

 

[Avro]

What does the age of the earth have to do with anything? You and others here, make it sound like it's an either or proposition. You either follow science or you follow God. Why not both? Why can't someone believe/accept the Big Bang Theory AND God?

If that makes you feel better then go right ahead.

How was man created?

Ribs or primortial ooze?

Do we come from apes?

Were we once fish?

Were we once single cell oraganisms?

Did we live with dinosaurs?

When will the earth die?

Is any of this in the bible?

If you want to say there is no evidence for either position, the most important question is who is making the positive claim and which claim is the default position. In other words, which position actually requires evidence for it. It seems obvious that theism is the positive claim and atheist is the default. In every possible philosophical question, save your own existence, the positive claim is the one that asserts something is true and the default is not true. But theists want to insist that God is self-evident and the default position by virtue of the universe existing and that atheists have the burden of proof. But that explanation (God exists because the universe exists) is not constructed in a way that is self-evident. It has a reason: "because the universe exists." What is self-evident in the claim is that the universe exist. That's it. You can't say something is self-evident because of something else. That makes it not self-evident.

If you can't explain something then just make something up.

 

[gerryh]

If that makes you feel better then go right ahead.

How was man created?

Ribs or primortial ooze?

Do we come from apes?

Were we once fish?

Were we once single cell oraganisms?

Did we live with dinosaurs?

When will the earth die?

Is any of this in the bible?

So, you take the Bible ( as in the Old testament, Genesis) as a literal work then.

 

[Avro]

So, you take the Bible ( as in the Old testament, Genesis) as a literal work then.

No, I take it as a fairytale.

Answer my questions please.

 

[gerryh]

No, I take it as a fairytale.

Answer my questions please.

I believe in the accepted scientific explanations.

 

[Corduroy]

I try to avoid arguing the specifics or any one religion because these people have centuries of apologetics to copy and paste from and I just don't have the patience to bother reading up on it and coming up with rebuttals. It's like arguing Peter Pan. Is it just a crocodile with a clock in its stomach or is it symbolic of death? The difference being no one thinks Peter Pan is true and when discussing stories in the Bible, you have to start from there.

If you can't explain something then just make something up.

That too.

 

[Avro]

I believe in the accepted scientific explanations.

So you believe all science in matters of the origins of species and the bible?

Wow!

Are you a christian?

 

[gerryh]

So you believe all science in matters of the origins of species and the bible?

Wow!

Are you a christian?

Of course I am, and from this statement alone you show your ignorance Avro. Science and Religion can co-exist. It has for many many years. You not realizing this shows how little you really know.