Christians, What Do You Make Of The Decline Of Your Religion?

[Miles]

.


....................

.................... source

Or doesn't it matter?

.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #147]

Based on what criteria?

Because it appears you start with the Bible, then question everything that conflicts with it.

You'd agree this is flawed reasoning, yes?

Because you don't seem to question experts that support your chosen religion.

For example, experts agree that Jesus probably lived, but there is less direct evidence that he did than Evolution is true.

You seem to not only believe Jesus lived, but that you are betting on it. Whereas, with Evolution, you won't be impacted by it, so it's easy to dismiss, even though your are abjectly wrong.

Plus, it gives you perfect topic to earn your Persecution Quota as a Christian. (Which I believe drives the anti-intellectual strain in Christianity)

I think those are valid points, and I'm nervously watching the rules, because arguing about the way someone argues or reasons can so often look like personal attack. But yes, hard evidence for evolution is dismissed. The old debunked arguments (sea shells on mountains) are trotted out (Grand canyon, the type of critter explains why some are higher up in strata, and that ludicrous claim that something smashed into the hydroplate, releasing the flood. (1) and eventually the arguments are dropped and everything is simply denied.

Even Creationists try harder. RATE tried to refute radiometric data and admitted when they couldn't, even though some kept denying it, and post Dover, it was accepted that Creationism wasn't science - but they tried to separate ID from Creationism, when it is a pulpit pretending to be a lab bench.

There's the problem of Faith here - too often overlooked. Aside individual atheists, atheism does base itself on scientific data. Thus there is debate about Jesus historicity. There is debate about Myth vs a real figure and (long after it should have been resoled) whether the gospel report of what Jesus said and did is credible (2). Eve though 'miracles don't happen' is a bit denialist, it is valid in that more than just a Claim is needed. And the resurrection - accounts are evidence for the claim. And if we don't accept that, we 'should not accept any other book'. Ok. But we do not accept all book claims any more than we accept the claim of cold fusion before it is validated. Thus while the resurrection - claim does put the burden of proof on the skeptic (or that's what I reckon ) the accounts do not stand up to cross examination. And that's where the denial crops up. You prove beyond any reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, that Matthew's account is untenable when contradicted by Luke.

But then we get the denial, and the hope and trust that the social jury will be stuffed by believers, (3) which has been the name of the game for a long time.

(1) when of course if you break the ice on a lake, the lake stays where it is, it doesn't flood the area. Their tabletop models and stuff that pops into their heads make no sense.

(2) David and the Shewbread and Babes and sucklings has to show that Jesus could not credibly have said those things, but which Bible experts have even noticed, let alone discussedi.

(3) not to mention the judge, and that was shown at Dover where the IC group were sure that the Conservative judge would find for them. Unfortunately for them the judge did his job, and then because the subject of creationist hate and abuse.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #151]

Thanks, I edited it. I really don't want to make personal attacks, as it's unimportant to me on the individual level. I'm simply bothered that I see so many similar characters on the internet. Poe's in every way (that you don't know if they are fanatics or just pretending to be outrageous).

Sadly, many of them probably do this for a few years, get tired of being called names, then learn enough to know they are wrong and go away, living a noraml life where defending Jesus was just a phase in their lives.

Sure, they won't admit to that now. They truly think they are fighting the good fight, but eventually even they will tire of it. But, another one will take their place... and on and on goes the cycle of evangelical life...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #151]

Thanks, I edited it. I really don't want to make personal attacks, as it's unimportant to me on the individual level. I'm simply bothered that I see so many similar characters on the internet. Poe's in every way (that you don't know if they are fanatics or just pretending to be outrageous).

Sadly, many of them probably do this for a few years, get tired of being called names, then learn enough to know they are wrong and go away, living a noraml life where defending Jesus was just a phase in their lives.

Sure, they won't admit to that now. They truly think they are fighting the good fight, but eventually even they will tire of it. But, another one will take their place... and on and on goes the cycle of evangelical life...

It's all a little bit alarming, as the figures for Genesis literalism (Ceationism) were 40% last time. Which is worse when one sees Creationists taking over educational boards and trying to delelte science from school and replace it with Bible literalism. But worse even is when it becomes not only politicized, but radicalized. What we got here is a narrowly missed imposition of Christian Sharya law. Plus of course power grabbing despite a lost election with a threat of corrupt dictatorship with a lifetime presidency, you can bet your afterlife on it.

The frightener is that most Christians would not endorse religious theocratic dictatorship, but will always vote for Jesus, and the Bible. So you only need to pose kissing a Book you never read and the Beleivers will vote for you; just as you do your Nuremburg act with a party thug dressed as an orthodox priest swinging a censor and all the good little believers will support this crazy fascist as he leads his country into destruction. And when you seen one religious (or party Dogma) - endorsed dictator, you seen them all.

Question, for discussion, do Republicans support Putin's regime, or is he the evil guy that Trump could have stopped, if only he'd been allowed to occupy the White House? I'm not sure they know which side to be on. It's what happens when religious patriotism becomes indistinguishable from radical ideology, and not only in the US.

[brunumb]

By what i see, scientists gets the results, which gives them money. If they would deny evolution theory, or things supporting it, they would lose money and credibility and job.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. It's not a matter of denial. That might apply to religious groups where you would get disfellowshipped or shunned or whatever if you went against the party line. Scientifically proving that the theory of evolution is wrong would actually gain one enormous acclaim and credibility. Your perception of the scientific community seems to have been distorted by the lens of religiosity.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #147]

Based on what criteria?
...

First criteria for me is that claims should be reasonable and logically sound.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to 1213 in post #147]

Based on what criteria?
...

First criteria for me is that claims should be reasonable and logically sound.

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #147]

Based on what criteria?
...

First criteria for me is that claims should be reasonable and logically sound.

No, the first criterion for you is evidently that it should fit the Bible. Otherwise, what is reasonable and logically sound about the daylight appearing before the sun was made, about the sun being made to stand still or about a floating box of animals and 8 people repopulating the world in a thousand or so years rather than a few million?

[1213]

...Otherwise, what is reasonable and logically sound about the daylight appearing before the sun was made, about the sun being made to stand still or about a floating box of animals and 8 people repopulating the world in a thousand or so years rather than a few million?

Other lights than sun exists, therefore it is perfectly logical to think that there could have been other light also in the beginning to cause day and night. Fascinating to find person who is a light denier.

And about the ark story, nothing illogical in it.

[1213]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Otherwise, what is reasonable and logically sound about the daylight appearing before the sun was made, about the sun being made to stand still or about a floating box of animals and 8 people repopulating the world in a thousand or so years rather than a few million?

Other lights than sun exists, therefore it is perfectly logical to think that there could have been other light also in the beginning to cause day and night. Fascinating to find person who is a light denier.

And about the ark story, nothing illogical in it.

But not daylight alternating with dark, which is what the Bible says. When you try to excuse the claim of daylight before the sun was made, you are not only in denial of science but the Bible. And everything about the Flood is illogical from enough water appearing to flood to a depth of 29,000 feet, but shoehorning all the animals needed to repopulate the earth into an oversized shoebox, and finally starvation rations for all when they finally debouch. All illogical and more. You are doing great work for atheism here.