Is Ridding The World of Religion The Answer

[Realworldjack]

There is a current thread on this site, that poses that we, "should put God aside for a few years." Once this is done, we would then turn our attention to the poor, and needy. The question then becomes, "Would we have a better world?"

Well, I cannot speak for any other religion in the world, but as a Christian, I would like to ask, does Christianity have anything at all to do with, and, or, does it ever promise to produce a, "better world?"

In other words, is it the objective of Christianity to produce better behaving people, in order to produce a better world?

Next, are we under the impression, that if there was no religion, and no belief in any sort of god, that this would produce a better world?

If we were to be able to rid the world of any sort of religion, would this rid the world of greed, selfishness, envy, strife, jealousy, bigotry, warfare, etc.? Even if it may rid the world less of these things, would it really rid it enough to even notice? Do we really believe, that it is simply religion that produces these things in us?

Or, do we all understand, that whether we hold some sort of belief in a god or not, that we are all guilty of these sort of things listed above, and that we all struggle against them?

My point is, as a Christian, I am not under the impression that, if all in the world were Christians, this would remedy our situation.

With this being said, is there anyone under the impression that if we could rid the world of any sort of religion, that this would remedy our situation, and be our salvation?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

You are quite right in pointing out that people have flaws, be they Christian or atheist. The problem is not with the Good Samaritan teaching but with the unnecessary concentration on God and building huge structures to flatter him. Let Christians do what they do already: help the needy, visit the sick and so on but let's put God away and concentrate on helping others. We won't get rid of our murderers or thieves, but we might then work together instead of calling ourselves Protestant Christians, Muslims or Saints. Having some gift-giving at what was Christmas would be lovely too and we could sing We Three Kings ( or Three Wee Kings, as they say in Scotland) with the same joviality and gusto as Julie sang "Doh, a Deer."

Sadly, people think if we throw God away we become Stalins, despite the fact that the present-day atrocities are done in God's name. So let's keep the good works and send Jehovah packing.

I think it is a bit naive to presume one's philosophy has no impact on one's ethical behavior. As I posted elsewhere, there is recognition even among atheists that Christianity has a tendency to promote altruism, whereas atheism does not.

We can note the sparseness of atheistic organizations intent on feeding the poor, and the large number of Christian organizations. Why should this be the case if one's philosophical worldview has no effect on one's tendency towards altruism?

[marco]

I think it is a bit naive to presume one's philosophy has no impact on one's ethical behavior.

Indeed it would be, and I hope I am not naive in this direction. Bentham founded Utilitarianism and his philanthropy allowed him to give a brave defence of homosexuality long before the term was ever thought of. Wilberforce was a philanthropist who swam against the tide and fought for the abolition of slavery. I suspect you mean that if we discard GOD our ethical behaviour is affected. A philanthropist is a philanthropist, with or without God.

We can note the sparseness of atheistic organizations intent on feeding the poor, and the large number of Christian organizations. Why should this be the case if one's philosophical worldview has no effect on one's tendency towards altruism?

I am surprised at this statistical observation. Given that Christianity is widespread, we should expect many practical philanthropists to come from that area. It is called arithmetic. Christian orgamisations call themselves by their names: CAFOD, SCIAF ...or whatever. I don't think atheists band togetehr in that way.

Incidentally, when I asked the Red Cross Charity people for Christmas cards that reflect Jesus I was told sharply that they are a non-denominational organisation. In asking whether this meant they were anti-Christian in replacing the Magi, the shepherds and the manger with a plump robin I was informed they were NOT religious. So there it is - from the reindeer's mouth.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 22 by marco]

I am surprised at this statistical observation. Given that Christianity is widespread, we should expect many practical philanthropists to come from that area. It is called arithmetic. Christian orgamisations call themselves by their names: CAFOD, SCIAF ...or whatever. I don't think atheists band togetehr in that way.

I agree; they do not. Do you think they are thereby more or less effective in spreading altruism and democracy?

Do you think there is some correlation between the Protestant tendency towards altruism and their religious worldview, or is this purely coincidental?

[marco]

Do you think there is some correlation between the Protestant tendency towards altruism and their religious worldview, or is this purely coincidental?

I haven't observed a "Protestant tendency towards altruism." The Protestant tendency in Northern Ireland is towards hatred of Catholics, and was so pretty openly when little children were altruistically stoned on their way to school. There are Protestants who are lovely people, altruists of all descriptions, but I don't for a moment think Protestantism, Catholicism or Islam has anything to do with their goodness. There are good people who are theists and non-theists - that's all we can say.

[Kenisaw]

I can agree to that, as long as you can agree that the reason people want to be in a trusting relationship with god is because they have selfish ends.

What do you mean by selfish here? For instance, seeking a marital relationship can be said to be selfish in a way (i.e., you aren't finding a marriage partner for someone else), but that is saying a different thing than saying 'my spouse is acting selfishly by using our money on gambling'.

I see no difference there.

And those useful actions, by sheer coincidence, just so happen to make god happy so which allows one to get into heaven.

That is not what I think Christianity says at all. Christians don't get into heaven because their moral actions make God happy. Using the marriage analogy, you seem to be saying that Christianity teaches that God will marry us if we do the kinds of things that make God happy. I'm saying God marries us when we are doing many things that don't make God happy and then as we grow in love with God we begin to do the kinds of things that make God (and ourselves and others since God is about making people) happy/joyful.

I understand your explanation, and I have to say I still don't see a difference. Ultimately, we only get into heaven if we have pleased a god. That's the bottom line, correct? It doesn't matter that a god loves us, if we don't do as asked we don't get the door prize. People want to get into heaven and live longer than a billion trillion years, so they walk the walk and talk the talk that gets them there.

I'm not trying to belittle your experience as a Christian here by the way. I'm trying to point out that life is a selfish endeavor, for all living things. Life tries to thrive and prosper, often to the detriment of other life. I think it can be argued that every single thing we do is done for selfish reasons. I think that is true whether one's worldview is theistic or atheistic.

Hmm. No offense, but if someone needs help deciding what they should be doing when a hurricane hits Houston, that doesn't say much for that person. Do you really think you need direction from god before helping someone. Should someone who comes upon a rape stop and pray, to see what they should do?

I wasn't trying to imply that. That verse in James doesn't say "If you see them in need, pray and then see how you can meet their needs since you won't know any way on your own." Absolutely, people know ways to help the victims of the hurricane, or someone being raped among many other things. James teaches that they should immediately help in anyway they can. I do think prayer can help us be more mindful of all the various ways we may be able to help people in need beyond the obvious initial ones.

As a form of meditation that is probably true. Clearing the mind and engaging in a thought exercise about a particular situation allows for focus and clarity. Prayer is just such an exercise (even though I don't think there is actual communication going on with another being).

But you were talking about people praying for the victims, asking God to do something. I was saying that if those people were truly praying to God while doing nothing, that God would be trying to wake them up to the obvious truths that they have resources and ways to help and should be using those instead of just giving them the equivalent of warm wishes.

if there's is a god, then I would hope that is indeed what god is trying to do. Because to be honest (and I saw this constantly in my believer days) I saw people do prayer and exactly nothing else, all the time. And they all thought they were helping. That's why I think it's better to do something tangible no matter what, so that you know something actually got done.

[The Tanager]

I can agree to that, as long as you can agree that the reason people want to be in a trusting relationship with god is because they have selfish ends.

What do you mean by selfish here? For instance, seeking a marital relationship can be said to be selfish in a way (i.e., you aren't finding a marriage partner for someone else), but that is saying a different thing than saying 'my spouse is acting selfishly by using our money on gambling'.

I see no difference there.

The difference being that in one we are talking about who the action is for and in the other we are talking about the character in which an action is done. I doubt you are just saying Christians are selfish in that they are seeking a relationship for themselves rather than someone else. If I'm correct there, then when you say Christians have selfish ends in wanting to be in a trusting relationship with God, what kind of character are you talking about?

Someone can spend time with a grandmother because they want an inheritance. Or you can spend time with a grandmother because it makes you happy. Or you can spend time with a grandmother because it makes you happy and you want to also bring joy to your grandmother, even in things that don't bring you joy. If you are saying all of those are "selfish ends" then I think your definition is too broad, but will agree that, broadly speaking, Christians have "selfish ends" in seeking a trusting relationship with God.

I understand your explanation, and I have to say I still don't see a difference. Ultimately, we only get into heaven if we have pleased a god. That's the bottom line, correct? It doesn't matter that a god loves us, if we don't do as asked we don't get the door prize. People want to get into heaven and live longer than a billion trillion years, so they walk the walk and talk the talk that gets them there.

But what do you see as being asked of us, according to my view of Christianity? And what is the prize that we get?

As a form of meditation that is probably true. Clearing the mind and engaging in a thought exercise about a particular situation allows for focus and clarity. Prayer is just such an exercise (even though I don't think there is actual communication going on with another being).

If there is no actual communication, then I agree it is just a form of meditation. But if there is actual communication, it is more than that. Christians believe it is more than that. We are not just clearing and focusing the mind, but receiving things not from our own making. I realize you disagree and I don't fault you for thinking that.

if there's is a god, then I would hope that is indeed what god is trying to do. Because to be honest (and I saw this constantly in my believer days) I saw people do prayer and exactly nothing else, all the time. And they all thought they were helping. That's why I think it's better to do something tangible no matter what, so that you know something actually got done.

I've had a mixed experience with various Christians. Many just pay lip service. Many live out the words on their lips. Many don't even think about it at all, caught up in their self and their bellies and their boredom and whatever. This is part of the purpose of Lent, to wake up the Christians to a more sacrificial way of life than we are living. Personal sacrifice isn't a big concept to too many people nowadays.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

I became ill with the flu for most of Feburary and lost track of this string through a distinct lack of give-a-darn . Sorry for the tardiness.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It's been clear to many people, pretty much eternally I suppose, that many religious claims are not really realistic.

This may be true, but the trouble I am having is to understand what this would have to do with what the truth may be? You see, there is a tremendous difference between, "it being clear to many people", as opposed to these religious claims clearly being unrealistic.

Things which are not true inevitably tend to correspond to things (claims) which are contrary to common observation and common experience. Like flying reanimated corpses and the like. That's what makes such claims unrealistic.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I refer to these claims as silly.

Well, you can refer to them any way you like, and I will have no problem with the way you refer to them. However, unless you can demonstrate that the claims are indeed silly, then you are simply expressing an opinion. What is really silly, is for one to express their opinion, as if it were a fact!

Silly
sil-ee
adjective
absurd; ridiculous; irrational:

Wikipedia
Silliness
Silliness is defined as engaging in "a ludicrous folly", showing a "lack of good sense or judgment", or "the condition of being frivolous, trivial, or superficial"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silliness

Making unsubstantiated claims which run contrary to all common experience, common observation, and therefore all common sense, is the textbook definition of being silly. Sometimes people are silly just for entertainment purposes. Other times they are simply exposed as holding foolish notions.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But religion also served to explain the big questions of existence. And so religion has endured.

As with many times, I do not disagree with you here. However, your problem is the fact that many of us do not begin with the question of our, "existence." Rather, there are some of us who begin with being concerned with what the truth may be.

For most of human history explanations for natural phenomena seemed to only be answerable through recourse to supernatural assumptions. Religion has served the purpose of answering what was otherwise a mystery. Largely by creating beliefs that operated for mysterious reasons. This began to change a few centuries ago however as various individuals began to recognize that the mighty phenomena of the world that was occurring, occurs for natural and understandable reasons. The recognition that the universe works according to principles that are natural and largely predictable has occurred largely in the 20th century. So scientific explanations have understandably encountered resistance from believers. And of course science does not come complete with a make believe bag of goodies to offer anyone. The truth simply is what it is, and is under no obligation to offer anyone warm fuzzy promises. But many people are devoted to their delusions, and demand their promised bag of goodies.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And so religion has endured.

And again, we agree! Not that religion actually serves to, "to explain the big questions of existence." But rather that there are those religions that claim to explain such things, and that there are those who have the need to have these questions resolved.

However, your problem here is, none of this would explain the claims made in the NT. Nor would it explain all the other facts involved. In other words, the NT Biblical writers, were not in any way interested in explaining "the questions of our existence."

The problem is, that scientific observation has been consistently undermining religious explanations. It is not science's objective to undermine religious explanations. This has simply proven to be a consequence of free scientific investigation. But religions were never anything more than make believe derived from assumption and the imagination in the first place. So that fact that religion is consistently proving, through a careful process of empirical observation, to be all wrong is not really surprising.

But again, and however, the NT writers were not attempting to explain the, "operation of the universe." Rather, they were simply attempting to explain what they claim to have witnessed,, and they did so, not having any idea that what they were writing would ever be read some 2000 years later.

People thousands of years ago believed that virtually anything was possible, because they believed that the supernatural existed. Your assertion that the early followers of Jesus actually witnessed a risen corpse, one that would subsequently fly off up into the sky, not only assumes that these witnesses were telling the truth, but that they witnessed something which reason and common sense indicates was impossible. Your claims and your beliefs really boil down to the question, "Do people lie and falsify?' And the answer to that is abundantly clear.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And the more we understand, the more we can see that the universe works perfectly fine naturally and does not require supernatural assistance.

Since science should operate from the stand point of simply wanting to know how the universe actually works naturally, then this is what we should expect. However, science cannot give an answer for the claims that are made by the NT writers.
In other words, science can only tell us how the universe works. It cannot tell us, if there may be some sort of supernatural force behind this work. It also cannot, and should not attempt to explain to us, if certain historical claims have actually occurred, or not.

Science is only attempting to discover what is true. If the universe requires supernatural support to operate, than that would represent the truth. So far however, no supernatural support has been observed to be necessary.

As an example, we know there are claims of a body coming back to life. It is not the duty of science to tell us if this event actually happened. Rather, it would be the duty of science to explain to us if, it is scientifically possible for such an event to occur.

It is not the duty of science to tell us whether or not quidditch is possible either. But, like flying reindeer, we don't have to consider the question too hard before we come to the conclusion that brooms do not fly. And science is certainly capable of explaining just why that is.

We all understand that a body coming back to life is not in any way, scientifically possible. But this does not explain whether the event actually happened!

It gives us every real reason to doubt it.

Reasons to believe that Jesus came back to life and flew away: because some of his followers claimed that it happened.

Reasons to doubt that Jesus came back to life and flew away: all common observation, common experience and common sense.

As a matter of unbiased contemplation, it's not really much of a contest, is it! But it is the bias, the predisposition, the WISH, of believers to believe based on faith and gullibility, that makes all the difference to believers.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The word is out, and there is no going back.

You are right again! The word is out! It is scientifically impossible for a body to come back to life. Now, does this necessarily mean that a body did not come back to life?

My point is that Christianity is very much like the emperor's new clothes. Now that it has been pointed out to people that Christianity is based on unfounded assumptions and baseless assertions, that is rapidly becoming apparent to people. Christianity is fading as a realistic possibility. Like realizing that the emperor is actually naked, there is no going back to the delusion that he MUST be wearing clothes because everyone else seems to believe it.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Science did not set out to be the death knell of religion.

Again, we agree. However the fact of the matter is, science should never even concern itself with religion. In other words, science should never concern itself with attempting to disprove any sort of religion. Rather, it should stick to those things it can explain, and if those things necessarily explain religion away, then so be it. However, thus far, it has not!

And yet religion is failing in the well educated west. This is only occurring because science has reached the point where it can explain the operation of the universe perfectly well without recourse to supernatural intervention. If you want to overcome this objection, come back when you can explain how the universe could not possibly exist without supernatural intervention (intelligent design), but your made up and assumed to exist intelligent designer seems to exist perfectly well in your imagination without the benefit of intelligent design.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But that is what is occurring.

Not exactly! This is simply an opinion you hold!

Actually it is a statistical fact.


http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/amer ... 2_1_310px/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe

Only 37% of the people in the UK are willing to declare their absolute belief in God. In Sweden it's only 18%. Even in Spain, it's only 59%. As committed believers die off, there are fewer and fewer younger believers to take their place.

Well, the fact of the matter is, all of us who are alive, are dying at this very moment. What is causing our death?

All living things die. I am sorry if you are just now getting the memo. Biologically, things die because during the course of their lifetimes the cells of living creatures have to be replaced with new cells. Over the course of time cells begin to be replicated less and less precisely, and the individual becomes degraded. I am nearly seventy. I am very clearly degraded from when I was twenty.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
By the middle of this century the big technologically advanced nations of the world will have become mainly populated by non believers, leaving religion to be largely the product of the backwards and poorly educated counties.

Well, more than likely, you, and I, will not be here to witness such things, since we both are dying, sooner. If this does occur after we are gone, what would be your point?

This is true, but the statistical writing is on the wall. What has changed? Science explains the operation of the universe, and God is reduced to make believe. This is also what I meant by "the cat is out of the bag."

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
There has been a fundamental change in the way we view the universe, and I don't see the tide turning on this.

Well, we never really know which way the tide will turn. But I would have to agree with you, that I do not see the tide turning much at all. In other words, I tend to believe that as time moves on, we will begin to see, less, and less Christians. What I am having trouble understanding is, what is your point?

Loss of belief in religion is currently undergoing a kind of free fall. This is unprecedented historically. But there is a reason for it. Religion is bogus, and always was! It never was true to begin with, and because it was never true to begin with, it is beginning an inevitable decline in the general intellectual acceptance of it. That's my point.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

I became ill with the flu for most of Feburary and lost track of this string through a distinct lack of give-a-darn . Sorry for the tardiness.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It's been clear to many people, pretty much eternally I suppose, that many religious claims are not really realistic.

This may be true, but the trouble I am having is to understand what this would have to do with what the truth may be? You see, there is a tremendous difference between, "it being clear to many people", as opposed to these religious claims clearly being unrealistic.

Things which are not true inevitably tend to correspond to things (claims) which are contrary to common observation and common experience. Like flying reanimated corpses and the like. That's what makes such claims unrealistic.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I refer to these claims as silly.

Well, you can refer to them any way you like, and I will have no problem with the way you refer to them. However, unless you can demonstrate that the claims are indeed silly, then you are simply expressing an opinion. What is really silly, is for one to express their opinion, as if it were a fact!

Silly
sil-ee
adjective
absurd; ridiculous; irrational:

Wikipedia
Silliness
Silliness is defined as engaging in "a ludicrous folly", showing a "lack of good sense or judgment", or "the condition of being frivolous, trivial, or superficial"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silliness

Making unsubstantiated claims which run contrary to all common experience, common observation, and therefore all common sense, is the textbook definition of being silly. Sometimes people are silly just for entertainment purposes. Other times they are simply exposed as holding foolish notions.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But religion also served to explain the big questions of existence. And so religion has endured.

As with many times, I do not disagree with you here. However, your problem is the fact that many of us do not begin with the question of our, "existence." Rather, there are some of us who begin with being concerned with what the truth may be.

For most of human history explanations for natural phenomena seemed to only be answerable through recourse to supernatural assumptions. Religion has served the purpose of answering what was otherwise a mystery. Largely by creating beliefs that operated for mysterious reasons. This began to change a few centuries ago however as various individuals began to recognize that the mighty phenomena of the world that was occurring, occurs for natural and understandable reasons. The recognition that the universe works according to principles that are natural and largely predictable has occurred largely in the 20th century. So scientific explanations have understandably encountered resistance from believers. And of course science does not come complete with a make believe bag of goodies to offer anyone. The truth simply is what it is, and is under no obligation to offer anyone warm fuzzy promises. But many people are devoted to their delusions, and demand their promised bag of goodies.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And so religion has endured.

And again, we agree! Not that religion actually serves to, "to explain the big questions of existence." But rather that there are those religions that claim to explain such things, and that there are those who have the need to have these questions resolved.

However, your problem here is, none of this would explain the claims made in the NT. Nor would it explain all the other facts involved. In other words, the NT Biblical writers, were not in any way interested in explaining "the questions of our existence."

The problem is, that scientific observation has been consistently undermining religious explanations. It is not science's objective to undermine religious explanations. This has simply proven to be a consequence of free scientific investigation. But religions were never anything more than make believe derived from assumption and the imagination in the first place. So that fact that religion is consistently proving, through a careful process of empirical observation, to be all wrong is not really surprising.

But again, and however, the NT writers were not attempting to explain the, "operation of the universe." Rather, they were simply attempting to explain what they claim to have witnessed,, and they did so, not having any idea that what they were writing would ever be read some 2000 years later.

People thousands of years ago believed that virtually anything was possible, because they believed that the supernatural existed. Your assertion that the early followers of Jesus actually witnessed a risen corpse, one that would subsequently fly off up into the sky, not only assumes that these witnesses were telling the truth, but that they witnessed something which reason and common sense indicates was impossible. Your claims and your beliefs really boil down to the question, "Do people lie and falsify?' And the answer to that is abundantly clear.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And the more we understand, the more we can see that the universe works perfectly fine naturally and does not require supernatural assistance.

Since science should operate from the stand point of simply wanting to know how the universe actually works naturally, then this is what we should expect. However, science cannot give an answer for the claims that are made by the NT writers.
In other words, science can only tell us how the universe works. It cannot tell us, if there may be some sort of supernatural force behind this work. It also cannot, and should not attempt to explain to us, if certain historical claims have actually occurred, or not.

Science is only attempting to discover what is true. If the universe requires supernatural support to operate, than that would represent the truth. So far however, no supernatural support has been observed to be necessary.

As an example, we know there are claims of a body coming back to life. It is not the duty of science to tell us if this event actually happened. Rather, it would be the duty of science to explain to us if, it is scientifically possible for such an event to occur.

It is not the duty of science to tell us whether or not quidditch is possible either. But, like flying reindeer, we don't have to consider the question too hard before we come to the conclusion that brooms do not fly. And science is certainly capable of explaining just why that is.

We all understand that a body coming back to life is not in any way, scientifically possible. But this does not explain whether the event actually happened!

It gives us every real reason to doubt it.

Reasons to believe that Jesus came back to life and flew away: because some of his followers claimed that it happened.

Reasons to doubt that Jesus came back to life and flew away: all common observation, common experience and common sense.

As a matter of unbiased contemplation, it's not really much of a contest, is it! But it is the bias, the predisposition, the WISH, of believers to believe based on faith and gullibility, that makes all the difference to believers.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The word is out, and there is no going back.

You are right again! The word is out! It is scientifically impossible for a body to come back to life. Now, does this necessarily mean that a body did not come back to life?

My point is that Christianity is very much like the emperor's new clothes. Now that it has been pointed out to people that Christianity is based on unfounded assumptions and baseless assertions, that is rapidly becoming apparent to people. Christianity is fading as a realistic possibility. Like realizing that the emperor is actually naked, there is no going back to the delusion that he MUST be wearing clothes because everyone else seems to believe it.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Science did not set out to be the death knell of religion.

Again, we agree. However the fact of the matter is, science should never even concern itself with religion. In other words, science should never concern itself with attempting to disprove any sort of religion. Rather, it should stick to those things it can explain, and if those things necessarily explain religion away, then so be it. However, thus far, it has not!

And yet religion is failing in the well educated west. This is only occurring because science has reached the point where it can explain the operation of the universe perfectly well without recourse to supernatural intervention. If you want to overcome this objection, come back when you can explain how the universe could not possibly exist without supernatural intervention (intelligent design), but your made up and assumed to exist intelligent designer seems to exist perfectly well in your imagination without the benefit of intelligent design.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But that is what is occurring.

Not exactly! This is simply an opinion you hold!

Actually it is a statistical fact.


http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/amer ... 2_1_310px/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe

Only 37% of the people in the UK are willing to declare their absolute belief in God. In Sweden it's only 18%. Even in Spain, it's only 59%. As committed believers die off, there are fewer and fewer younger believers to take their place.

Well, the fact of the matter is, all of us who are alive, are dying at this very moment. What is causing our death?

All living things die. I am sorry if you are just now getting the memo. Biologically, things die because during the course of their lifetimes the cells of living creatures have to be replaced with new cells. Over the course of time cells begin to be replicated less and less precisely, and the individual becomes degraded. I am nearly seventy. I am very clearly degraded from when I was twenty.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
By the middle of this century the big technologically advanced nations of the world will have become mainly populated by non believers, leaving religion to be largely the product of the backwards and poorly educated counties.

Well, more than likely, you, and I, will not be here to witness such things, since we both are dying, sooner. If this does occur after we are gone, what would be your point?

This is true, but the statistical writing is on the wall. What has changed? Science explains the operation of the universe, and God is reduced to make believe. This is also what I meant by "the cat is out of the bag."

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
There has been a fundamental change in the way we view the universe, and I don't see the tide turning on this.

Well, we never really know which way the tide will turn. But I would have to agree with you, that I do not see the tide turning much at all. In other words, I tend to believe that as time moves on, we will begin to see, less, and less Christians. What I am having trouble understanding is, what is your point?

Loss of belief in religion is currently undergoing a kind of free fall. This is unprecedented historically. But there is a reason for it. Religion is bogus, and always was! It never was true to begin with, and because it was never true to begin with, it is beginning an inevitable decline in the general intellectual acceptance of it. That's my point.

Things which are not true inevitably tend to correspond to things (claims) which are contrary to common observation and common experience.

The key to your sentence above is the phrase, "tend to be." This is the case with much of what you say. In other words, we all know what "tends to be" the case, with what happens in most cases with long dead bodies. But, this does not, and would not tell us, what has happened in every case.

Therefore, if you could say, "Things which are not true inevitably [strike]tend[/strike] DO correspond to things (claims) which are contrary to common observation and common experience" then you would have a point. As it stands, all you have is an opinion, based upon what usually happens.

Making unsubstantiated claims which run contrary to all common experience, common observation, and therefore all common sense, is the textbook definition of being silly.

Okay, since it is just you, and I, what "unsubstantiated claims" have I made?

For most of human history explanations for natural phenomena seemed to only be answerable through recourse to supernatural assumptions. Religion has served the purpose of answering what was otherwise a mystery. Largely by creating beliefs that operated for mysterious reasons. This began to change a few centuries ago however as various individuals began to recognize that the mighty phenomena of the world that was occurring, occurs for natural and understandable reasons. The recognition that the universe works according to principles that are natural and largely predictable has occurred largely in the 20th century. So scientific explanations have understandably encountered resistance from believers. And of course science does not come complete with a make believe bag of goodies to offer anyone. The truth simply is what it is, and is under no obligation to offer anyone warm fuzzy promises. But many people are devoted to their delusions, and demand their promised bag of goodies.

Here is a whole wasted paragraph that would have nothing to do with our conversation. Simply pointing out the fact that there have been false beliefs, proves nothing as far as Christianity is concerned. This only tells us that it is possible that Christianity may well fall into this category. It in no way prove that it does.

I understand Christianity could be false. I do not need such a long paragraph to attempt to explain this to me. I am not attempting in any way to demonstrate that Christianity, must, and has to be true. Your problem is the fact that you have not in any way, even with all your efforts, and after 50 years, demonstrated Christianity to be false. You are not even close.

Thus far here, all you have done is to tell us what usually happens when a body dies, and go on to tell us how most folks use to think. Now, there may be many who are weak minded enough to believe this would settle the case, but I would not be one of them.

The problem is, that scientific observation has been consistently undermining religious explanations.

I would not disagree with this. However, science cannot explain how the universe came into existence. It can only attempt to explain what they believe may have happened based upon what they observe.

At this point allow me to attempt to explain something to you. Most of us in the world, do not do science. Therefore, we would be dependent upon those that do. I have a lot of faith, and believe in the scientific process. However, I do not have a whole lot of faith in those who practice in the field.

Just as an example, when you watch one of the big new channels such as CNN, CSMBC, FOX, etc., do you truly believe you are getting the real news? Or, do you rightly understand that each of these networks has a particular political slant, and will, and do report the news toward that slant?

Now, let us carry this over to science. We do indeed have a few scientists who are Christian. Now, I am sure you believe their work is bogus, and they simply attempt to do science in a way that will tend to back what it is they already believe. Well, guess what? I agree with you, 100 percent. In other words, I do not trust those who have already made up their minds, which would certainly tend to force them to defend what it is they already believe.

Therefore, I do not trust, nor even pay attention to those involved in, "creation science."

The problem is, do you not believe there are those on the other side of the equation, who would, and do the same exact thing? Or, is it only those evil Christian scientists who would be capable of such a thing?

The bottom line here is, I believe in science, and am thankful for the many things it has supplied. However, I tend to wait until things have demonstrated, and proven one way of the other, as opposed to simply believing what I have been told by those I do not even know.

So then, when science proves, and actually demonstrates how the universe came into existence, and that there was no god involved, then I will jump on the band wagon with you. Until then, I will remain skeptical.

It is not science's objective to undermine religious explanations.

This is exactly what I am talking about. It certainly should not be the objective of science, but I think we can agree that it is the objective of certain scientists to actually uphold certain, "religious explanations." The question again is, are we to think that this only occurs on one side of the equation?

It seems sort of funny to me how there are those who are always under the impression that it is those who are opposed to their position that are the dishonest ones. However, those that tend to back what we believe, certainly could not be practicing dishonestly.

This has simply proven to be a consequence of free scientific investigation.

Your problem here is, even though there are many scientists who are opposed to a "religious explanation", science has not proven in any way that Christianity is false.

But religions were never anything more than make believe derived from assumption and the imagination in the first place.

I tend to stick to the facts, while I have demonstrated over, and over how you state an opinion, as if it were a fact. There certainly may have been many religions that would fit into this category. However, this would do nothing to demonstrate that they all must be so.

So that fact that religion is consistently proving, through a careful process of empirical observation, to be all wrong is not really surprising.

Again, science has proven no such thing. This is wishful thinking.

People thousands of years ago believed that virtually anything was possible, because they believed that the supernatural existed.

Continuing to point these things out, does nothing to support your argument in the least. In other words, even if what you say here were true, it still would not explain the claims in the NT. Rather, it would simply be an assumption, which would be, people back then believe all sorts of things, so this must, and has to explain the NT away.

Again, if this sort of thinking satisfies some, then that is fine. However, it seems sort of simple minded, to the point I would see no need in even bringing these things into the conversation.

Your assertion that the early followers of Jesus actually witnessed a risen corpse, one that would subsequently fly off up into the sky, not only assumes that these witnesses were telling the truth, but that they witnessed something which reason and common sense indicates was impossible.

Could you please demonstrate where I have made any such "assertions?" I really do not believe I have. If not, then again we can see, you work upon assumptions.

Your claims and your beliefs really boil down to the question, "Do people lie and falsify?' And the answer to that is abundantly clear.

If I were to argue that, "your unbelief in Christianity really boils down to, do people tell the truth? And the answer is abundantly clear." Would you not rightly consider this to be a form of simple mindedness? If so, then how in the world could your argument above, escape the accusation of being, simple minded?

In other words, you seem to be arguing that, "since people lie, and falsify" this somehow demonstrates that the claims in the NT, are lies, and falsification?

The question is not, "do people lie, and falsify", because they do. The question would also not be, "do people tell the truth, because they do. Rather, the question is, "did the authors of the letters in the NT, lie, and falsify? Or, were they telling the truth?

Knowing that we all, lie, falsify, as well as tell the truth, could not possibly verify if something may be true, or not.

Science is only attempting to discover what is true.

This may be true. However, there are things that science has demonstrated, and proven to be true, while there are others that have not been proven.

Next, science can only tell us what would be scientifically possible, it cannot tell you if an event actually has occurred. In other words, simply because an event is not scientifically possible, would not necessitate that it did not occur. Science is only concerned with the natural workings, and laws of the universe. It is not concerned with if there may be other things at work, other than the natural.

If the universe requires supernatural support to operate, than that would represent the truth.

As I have just pointed out, science is only concerned with the natural, it is not, and should not attempt to concern itself with the, "supernatural."

So far however, no supernatural support has been observed to be necessary.

The key words here would be, "so far" which demonstrates that it has not been proven, one way or the other. Moreover, science should only concern itself with the natural workings of the universe.

It is not the duty of science to tell us whether or not quidditch is possible either. But, like flying reindeer, we don't have to consider the question too hard before we come to the conclusion that brooms do not fly.

Making these sort of comparisons, only weakens your arguments, and is a sign of desperation. In other words, the reason we have this site, and the reason we continue to discuss these things, and the reason you have been at it for some 50 years now, is because we all understand there is actual real evidence to support the Christian claims, while we do not debate these other things you mention, because there is no such evidence.

This would be just one of the reasons your post become so dreadfully long. They are filled with things that would not be relevant to the conversation, along with the fact that with me, you seldom ever address the points I am making, but rather bring in your own arguments, that I would never attempt to make, and then tear these weak arguments down.

I said,

We all understand that a body coming back to life is not in any way, scientifically possible. But this does not explain whether the event actually happened!

To which you respond,

It gives us every real reason to doubt it.

Well you see, I have never attempted to make the argument that, "there were no real reasons to doubt." In fact, on more than one occasion, I have stated that, "I understand doubt, and can understand the reasons why there are those who doubt."

However, you are actually making my point. In other words, you are admitting that there are only, "reasons to doubt." You are not claiming that these things did not happen as a matter of fact, because you actually cannot rightly do so.

The only thing you can offer is your doubt, along with the reason for your doubt. I have acknowledged this from my point of view as well. In other words, I have acknowledged that I cannot demonstrate or prove what it is I believe concerning these things, rather all I can do is to give the reasons, along with the evidence why I believe as I do.

I seems then that the difference between you, and I is, I tend to deal in facts, while others seem to be in some sort of dreamworld.

Reasons to believe that Jesus came back to life and flew away: because some of his followers claimed that it happened.

Another statement of desperation, because if all we had were, "some of his followers claimed it happened", then I highly doubt we would be continuing to discuss this. It also would shed sort of a bad light on one who has spent the better part of his life, attempting to refute something with such little evidence to support it. This point alone certainly seems to demonstrate that there would be far more evidence concerning these things than, "some of his followers claimed that it happened."

Reasons to doubt that Jesus came back to life and flew away: all common observation, common experience and common sense.

Are you attempting to claim that everything happens according to "common observation, common experience and common sense?" Or, is the argument that this is what usually happens? Because, I am not thinking that anyone at all is attempting to argue that the events recorded in the NT would be, "common observation, common experience and common sense."

As a matter of unbiased contemplation, it's not really much of a contest, is it!

You would be correct if all we were talking about was what would be "common observation, common experience and common sense." Which is the point I have just made above.

But it is the bias, the predisposition, the WISH, of believers to believe based on faith and gullibility, that makes all the difference to believers.

Here is another one of your statements that is made as a statement of fact, when it is certainly an assumption. More than likely it is an assumption based upon many Christians you have dealt with, and you assume that all must operate in the same way, but it is an assumption, none the less.

Moreover, this same exact statement can be turned on you as well. Think about it. You have been at this for some 50 years. You seem to believe that your position is a proven, closed, and shut case, while I admit, and understand that I could be wrong, and that there are reasons for doubt. SO, who is it really who has, "the bias, the predisposition, the WISH, to believe based on faith and gullibility, that makes all the difference?"

Christianity is based on unfounded assumptions and baseless assertions

This is another one of your opinions stated as a fact. If it were true that Christianity was based upon, "unfounded assumptions and baseless assertions" then I would highly doubt that you would put forth such efforts? It would be senseless. However, you understand that this is not the case, which means you understand that there are very good reasons to believe, and this is what you are attempting to combat. Your statement above, is desperate, and a form of the wishful thinking you accuse others of.

Moreover, continuing to point out the fact that Christianity is waning, and less, and less are coming to belief, is another sign of desperation. This would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the things recorded in the NT were true or not. Therefore, the only reason I could think that it would be brought into the conversation is because this fact must somehow bring comfort to some, knowing that they are not alone, because many operate on what is more comfortable.

And yet religion is failing in the well educated west.

And again, I fail to see a point. Unless of course this somehow brings some comfort.

This is only occurring because science has reached the point where it can explain the operation of the universe perfectly well without recourse to supernatural intervention.

Which is exactly what it is suppose to do. What is the point? The universe works upon certain laws. These laws were set in place. Would this mean that the laws cannot and never have been broken? This is the point, science can only tell you how the universe works, based upon the laws of the universe. It cannot tell you if, and whether they can, or have been broken.

If you want to overcome this objection, come back when you can explain how the universe could not possibly exist without supernatural intervention (intelligent design), but your made up and assumed to exist intelligent designer seems to exist perfectly well in your imagination without the benefit of intelligent design.

This is not an objection that needs to be overcome. Well all believe the universe was set in motion, and we all believe that it operates upon certain laws. So then, no matter how the universe was set into motion, nor the laws it is set upon, would demonstrate that the laws can never be broken.

Next, we will deal with the fantasy world many seem to be in. Because, I did not make up in my imagination some sort of intelligent designer. Rather, there are claims made in the NT, that the natural laws of the universe were broken, and there is evidence to support these claims, which is demonstrated by the fact that you have spent the better part of your life attempting to refute those claims, to no avail, which is why you continue.

Only 37% of the people in the UK are willing to declare their absolute belief in God. In Sweden it's only 18%. Even in Spain, it's only 59%. As committed believers die off, there are fewer and fewer younger believers to take their place.

Here, I believe that our communication may have gotten mixed up a bit, because I cannot imagine that I would attempt to refute that Christianity is not waning. In fact, I understand, and know this to be the case.

The point is, none of this would have any bearing at all upon whether Christianity were true, or not. Surely, you are not attempting to claim that what most folks believe must be true? At any rate, it is another valueless point, that only takes up space.

Loss of belief in religion is currently undergoing a kind of free fall. This is unprecedented historically. But there is a reason for it. Religion is bogus, and always was! It never was true to begin with, and because it was never true to begin with, it is beginning an inevitable decline in the general intellectual acceptance of it. That's my point.

Well, we agree that "religion is currently undergoing a kind of free fall." However, the reason you give is simply an opinion, and a dreamworld. In other words, there may be, and surely are other reasons that may be involved. I have my opinion on what some of those reasons would be. However, on this site, I attempt to deal with the facts as much as I can, and leave the opinions out of it.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 28 by Realworldjack]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Things which are not true inevitably tend to correspond to things (claims) which are contrary to common observation and common experience.

The key to your sentence above is the phrase, "tend to be." This is the case with much of what you say. In other words, we all know what "tends to be" the case, with what happens in most cases with long dead bodies. But, this does not, and would not tell us, what has happened in every case.

I use the phrase "tend to be," somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Because those things that directly contradict all common observation and common experience are those things that, virtually without exception, correspond to make believe and imagination. Since none of us is gifted with the superpower necessary to know with absolute certainty what MAY be possible, I left the door open a tiny crack. Now the burden of proof is on you to establish to a high level of probability that this claim which contradicts all common experience and observation actually occurred. "That's what someone claimed thousands of years ago and I choose to believe it," falls remarkably well below any realistic level of high probability.

Therefore, if you could say, "Things which are not true inevitably tend DO correspond to things (claims) which are contrary to common observation and common experience" then you would have a point. As it stands, all you have is an opinion, based upon what usually happens.

MY "opinion" is based on all common experience and common observation.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Making unsubstantiated claims which run contrary to all common experience, common observation, and therefore all common sense, is the textbook definition of being silly.

Okay, since it is just you, and I, what "unsubstantiated claims" have I made?

The central claim of all Christianity is that a corpse came back to life and flew away. If you DO NOT believe this yourself then please say so and we can end right here.

I understand Christianity could be false. I do not need such a long paragraph to attempt to explain this to me. I am not attempting in any way to demonstrate that Christianity, must, and has to be true. Your problem is the fact that you have not in any way, even with all your efforts, and after 50 years, demonstrated Christianity to be false. You are not even close.

Two thousand years ago the followers of Jesus spread the rumor that he had risen from the dead. And you believe it. Apparently you DO need a long paragraph explaining why this is an unrealistic thing to believe.

Thus far here, all you have done is to tell us what usually happens when a body dies, and go on to tell us how most folks use to think. Now, there may be many who are weak minded enough to believe this would settle the case, but I would not be one of them.

True. Because I have the weight of reason and evidence entirely on my side. You have "because his followers claimed that it was so," on your side. I felt it necessary to point out that people thousands of years ago had very little medical or scientific knowledge. They believed that natural phenomena which occurred everyday was proof of the supernatural. They were not "weak minded," they were ignorant. They had an excuse for believing in make believe. Modern people have no such excuse. Religion is causing many people to purposely remain willfully ignorant.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The problem is, that scientific observation has been consistently undermining religious explanations.

I would not disagree with this. However, science cannot explain how the universe came into existence. It can only attempt to explain what they believe may have happened based upon what they observe.

Science cannot yet explain how the universe came into being with absolute certainty, this is true. Little by little the answer comes into better focus however. But no matter how strong the case becomes for a natural origin to the universe, Christian will continue to declare that the existence of the universe can only be explained by the existence of God.

It IS observed that energy cannot be created or destroyed. According to all observation and experience, energy is apparently eternal. It has been observed that the universe is expanding. This indicates that everything in the universe was once all in one place. Echoes of the big bang still exist. Which indicates that the universe began with a tremendous explosion. We also observe that for every effect, there was invariably an earlier cause. THe big bang is currently a closed door that we cannot see behind. Again, common experience indicates that for every effect, there is an earlier cause. SO there is no real reason to suppose that the big bang was the beginning of everything, and every reason to doubt it. THe problem is, we cannot see behind the door that is the big bang. But we can certainly make some informed assumptions. Not guesstimates, but reasoned conclusions based on other forms of evidence. During my lifetime the idea of black holes has gone from being widely derided as too improbable be true, to being considered one of the most important discoveries of cosmology. We now understand that black holes are real. Virtually every galaxy that can be observed is shining in x rays at the center. The signature of a supermassive black hole.

Black holes occur when enough mass exists to exert a force great enough for the mass to be concentrated down into a point theoretically known as a singularity. The result seems to be that this massive and concentrated amount of gravity creates a portal to someplace else. Black holes disappear from our plane of existence. How did the universe begin? Apparently from a concentrated point of energy. A theoretical singularity. The question "where did all of the energy of the big bang come from," is echoed in the question,"where did all of the energy in a black hole go?" And again, the answer seems to be "someplace else." Some place that we cannot directly observe.

Christians however simply write off the portions of science that they prefer not to believe. In the case of evolution for example, which Christians have convinced themselves is not only an erroneous fallacy, but that even science has largely discarded the notion of evolution. And this is nothing less than massive self deception. So "proof" becomes impossible, because when it comes to contradicting the Bible, there is no amount of proof that believers will ever consider conclusive. So is there more for us to learn? You bet there is. And some of us are going to go right on attempting to learn while believers go on embracing their superstition and make believe.

If cause and effect are unfailingly consistent, and energy really is eternal, then the probable answer to "what occurred prior to the big bang," is that all of the energy in our universe went through a process of contraction. Presumably through the force of gravity. And what occurred prior to that? Well, we have just surmised the existence of an entire other universe. So now the possibilities are limitless.

Everything I just said is based on current observation. It's still a long way from being proven, and it may well not prove to be the answer. Or at least not the entire answer. But this explanation is roughly infinitely far from the method ancient people used, which was the "make-it-up-and-declare-it-to-be-true" method of reaching conclusions. Make believe.

Science can, more or less, explain how the universe came into existence. The problem is that many people are addicted to their make believe and prefer to believe that the universe cannot be explained without recourse to subscribing to a belief in God. Make believe.

At this point allow me to attempt to explain something to you. Most of us in the world, do not do science.

And this explains so very much. Most people in the world have almost no idea how their technology works, because they don't understand the science that allows modern technology work. So they deny the science behind the technology, even while fully availing themselves of the fruits of the technology.

I understand that modern physics seems impenetrable to most people. However choosing to deny the truth of modern science, while at the same time availing themselves of the technology the science provides, is not only ignorant, it is again, self delusional.

Now, let us carry this over to science. We do indeed have a few scientists who are Christian. Now, I am sure you believe their work is bogus, and they simply attempt to do science in a way that will tend to back what it is they already believe. Well, guess what? I agree with you, 100 percent. In other words, I do not trust those who have already made up their minds, which would certainly tend to force them to defend what it is they already believe.

Therefore, I do not trust, nor even pay attention to those involved in, "creation science."

The problem is, do you not believe there are those on the other side of the equation, who would, and do the same exact thing? Or, is it only those evil Christian scientists who would be capable of such a thing?

The bottom line here is, I believe in science, and am thankful for the many things it has supplied. However, I tend to wait until things have demonstrated, and proven one way of the other, as opposed to simply believing what I have been told by those I do not even know.

So then, when science proves, and actually demonstrates how the universe came into existence, and that there was no god involved, then I will jump on the band wagon with you. Until then, I will remain skeptical.

The law of conservation of energy, energy can neither be created or destroyed, is derived from the first law of thermodynamics. It's one of the most basic laws of physics. It has been demonstrated to be true. The waiting period is over.

There is no weight of evidence which serves to contradict what you prefer to believe that will ever change your mind. Because for you this is an emotional experience, rather than a purely intellectual one. Good science relies on intellectual conclusions rather than emotional conclusions. Because you have already made up your mind, no conclusion that works to overturn the conclusions that satisfy your emotional needs can be considered acceptable. Which is why science is better served in the hands of religious skeptics. Dogma is a death sentence for science. Not that various individual scientists haven't allow some personal dogma (agenda) to cloud their judgement and skew their data. But faulty data can only provide faulty further research. Falsifying the data, which has occurred, or skewing the data to reach a preferred conclusion, will always become apparent in science. Because it produces faulty further research based on error. A scientist who falsifies is considered a pariah in science. Because it produces faulty further research, wastes time, and leads nowhere.

In religion however, dogmatic acceptance based on faith is considered to be a virtue. Religion and science simply are not compatible as instruments for discovering "the truth." And by "the truth" I am referring to actual truth, as opposed to prefered truth.

I predict that by the end of this century, religion will largely be considered a quaint relic of our superstitious past. I won't get to see it though, dammit.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It is not science's objective to undermine religious explanations.

This is exactly what I am talking about. It certainly should not be the objective of science, but I think we can agree that it is the objective of certain scientists to actually uphold certain, "religious explanations." The question again is, are we to think that this only occurs on one side of the equation?

The objective of any scientist should be nothing more, or less, then discovering pure truth. To that end one must clear their prejudices. Many well known scientists have taken a stand against the concept of "intelligent design," as pseudoscience which should not be taught in public schools. Believers have made every effort to obscure genuine science that threatens their beliefs. Such as evolution, which fundamentalists have declared is a failed "theory," which even scientists are largely abandoning. This is dishonest self deception of the highest order, and works to retard the expansion of knowledge. Are you aware that there is a movement in some fundamentalist circles to dispute the existence of dinosaurs? The fossilized remains of dinosaurs, they claim, have been faked by paleontologists. This is only one step removed from claiming that the fossilized remains of ancient creatures were put there by Satan to confuse humans.

It seems sort of funny to me how there are those who are always under the impression that it is those who are opposed to their position that are the dishonest ones. However, those that tend to back what we believe, certainly could not be practicing dishonestly.

In 1633 Galileo was threatened by the Pope with torture and death, unless he recanted his claim that the earth is in orbit around the sun. Which he promptly did. And then spent the rest of his life under house arrest in his villa. 385 years later and science has placed working robots on Mars.

Meanwhile, Christians are still waiting for a man who lived and died 2,000 years ago to return. So who is it that ACTUALLY seems to have been taken in by lies and a hoax?

There are times when it is not only clear that the other guy is wrong, but that the other guy is ridiculous. Comparing scientific achievements with a 2,000 year old claim that has an unbroken history of being nothing but total nonsense is a case in point.

So then, when science proves, and actually demonstrates how the universe came into existence, and that there was no god involved, then I will jump on the band wagon with you. Until then, I will remain skeptical.

Since no amount of "proof" will ever be sufficient, you will continue to subscribe to the ancient system of make believe that offers you eternal life in paradise. And relieves you of all of your perceived "sins." What did you do that was so terrible? Only you can answer that question of course, and I don't really want to know. I myself have managed to make it into old age with no heavy hammer of guilt hanging over my head. So I can't really relate.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It is not science's objective to undermine religious explanations.

This is exactly what I am talking about. It certainly should not be the objective of science, but I think we can agree that it is the objective of certain scientists to actually uphold certain, "religious explanations." The question again is, are we to think that this only occurs on one side of the equation?

It seems sort of funny to me how there are those who are always under the impression that it is those who are opposed to their position that are the dishonest ones. However, those that tend to back what we believe, certainly could not be practicing dishonestly.

There are a great number of leading scientists whose overt atheism is well known, this is true. Are they being dishonest in publically taking a position that runs contrary to popular opinion? That would seem to defy reason. Clearly they believe that "whistling against the wind," as it were, represents the honest position. I "whistled against the wind" for many years all alone. I certainly could have been wrong. But I was being painfully and intellectually honest. Most of the cute girls I knew in high school were Christian. My atheism was NOT widely considered adorable. And yet I persisted.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This has simply proven to be a consequence of free scientific investigation.

Your problem here is, even though there are many scientists who are opposed to a "religious explanation", science has not proven in any way that Christianity is false.

Science has not really proven that the story of Santa is wrong either. Of course it is possible to point out that reindeer have none of the attribute commonly associated with flight, that visiting all of the houses of all of the children of the world in a single night is physically impossible, and a sleigh large enough to carry presents to every child in the world would necessarily have to be the size of an aircraft carrier. Of course when the recourse is to claim magic, then all bases are covered. Not that it is science's job to disprove the story of Santa. Growing up was supposed to do the trick.

On the other hand, if science WAS to be utilized to disprove the Christianity, than the way to disprove Christianity is to disprove the Bible. Here is a good place to start.

Rev.6
[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Do I even need to go into detail on just why this is an ignorant thing to claim?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But religions were never anything more than make believe derived from assumption and the imagination in the first place.

I tend to stick to the facts, while I have demonstrated over, and over how you state an opinion, as if it were a fact. There certainly may have been many religions that would fit into this category. However, this would do nothing to demonstrate that they all must be so.

I believe I consistently back up my "opinions" with more supporting material than any other member of the forum. In fact it is often a main reason why my replies tend to be so long and detailed. So this is a hard claim to stomach.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
So that fact that religion is consistently proving, through a careful process of empirical observation, to be all wrong is not really surprising.

Again, science has proven no such thing. This is wishful thinking.

Do you deny that all religions but Christianity are based on false beliefs? If not we have just established that, mathematically, more than two thirds of the world's religions are wrong.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
People thousands of years ago believed that virtually anything was possible, because they believed that the supernatural existed.

Continuing to point these things out, does nothing to support your argument in the least. In other words, even if what you say here were true, it still would not explain the claims in the NT. Rather, it would simply be an assumption, which would be, people back then believe all sorts of things, so this must, and has to explain the NT away.

Again, if this sort of thinking satisfies some, then that is fine. However, it seems sort of simple minded, to the point I would see no need in even bringing these things into the conversation.

And attempting to downplay such an obviously crucial factor in the existence of religious belief only serves to make you look self serving at best, and delusional at worst. Because it is OBVIOUSLY true that ancient people believed they were surrounded by supernatural occurrences. Occurrences they witnessed on a day to day basis. Lightning, thunder and earthquakes reinforced the existence of the supernatural, which to most people was perfectly obvious in the existence of the sun alone.

But here is the real significance. Genuine belief in the supernatural serves to explain why people two thousand years ago bought into the story of the resurrection. Because if you genuinely believe in the supernatural anyway, supernatural claims are perfectly plausible. Especially when the stories are told in such a way as to dovetail with religious beliefs you already possess.

J.M. Robertson writes: "Like Christ,and like Adonis and Attis, Osiris and Dionysus also suffer and die to rise again. To become one with them is the mystical passion of their worshippers. They are all alike in that their mysteries give them immortality. From Mithraism Christ takes the symbolic keys of heaven and hell and assumes the function of the virgin-born Saoshaynt, the distroyer of the evil one. Like Mithra, Merodach,the Egyptian Khousu, he is a mediator; like Khousu, Horus and Merodach he is one of a trinity, like Horus he is joined with the Logos; and like Merodach he is associated with a holy spirit, one of whose symbol is fire. In fundamentals, Christianity is but paganism reshaped."(Pagan Christs, Robertson pp.52-53)

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual;the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the last judgement and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the mother and child, and the mystic philosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find it's exemplars and it's source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the Resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the Darkness and the Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the `Light shining in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world." (The Story of Civilization vol.3, "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p.595)

People thousands of years ago believed in nonsense. It wasn't their fault. They simply did not have the information that is available to us.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Your claims and your beliefs really boil down to the question, "Do people lie and falsify?' And the answer to that is abundantly clear.

If I were to argue that, "your unbelief in Christianity really boils down to, do people tell the truth? And the answer is abundantly clear." Would you not rightly consider this to be a form of simple mindedness? If so, then how in the world could your argument above, escape the accusation of being, simple minded?

In other words, you seem to be arguing that, "since people lie, and falsify" this somehow demonstrates that the claims in the NT, are lies, and falsification?

The question is not, "do people lie, and falsify", because they do. The question would also not be, "do people tell the truth, because they do. Rather, the question is, "did the authors of the letters in the NT, lie, and falsify? Or, were they telling the truth?

Knowing that we all, lie, falsify, as well as tell the truth, could not possibly verify if something may be true, or not.

There is a huge difference between lying and falsifying, and simply being wrong. If there are certain conditions under which energy can either be created or destroyed, then about three hundred years worth of observation and experimentation is proven wrong. But no one was lying or falsifying.

For about three centuries now, the observation that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, has stood up. For the entire course of human existence it has been observed that not only will a fully dead corpse not return to life, it will also not fly away. Suggestions to the contrary therefore do, and should, raise questions of lying and falsifying. In the case of Jesus, who is making the claim? His followers. Did his followers have any motive to make up such a story? And clearly they did. A motive to make up a story that by any normal consideration is unbelievable to the point of being ridiculous. The conclusion is obvious. Unless it is a conclusion based on emotional need. In which case obvious becomes meaningless.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
If the universe requires supernatural support to operate, than that would represent the truth.

As I have just pointed out, science is only concerned with the natural, it is not, and should not attempt to concern itself with the, "supernatural."

If there were clearly and obviously supernatural forces at work, then science would be compelled to take an interest.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
So far however, no supernatural support has been observed to be necessary.

The key words here would be, "so far" which demonstrates that it has not been proven, one way or the other. Moreover, science should only concern itself with the natural workings of the universe.

So far is all we have. You believe in make believe. Something which has not, "so far," shown itself to be valid. If God comes down out of the sky and announces His presence, I will admit to my error on DC&R, and I will join you on your side of the religious fence. If God comes down out of the sky and announces that He never existed to begin with, I expect you to admit that you were wrong the whole time.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It is not the duty of science to tell us whether or not quidditch is possible either. But, like flying reindeer, we don't have to consider the question too hard before we come to the conclusion that brooms do not fly.

Making these sort of comparisons, only weakens your arguments, and is a sign of desperation. In other words, the reason we have this site, and the reason we continue to discuss these things, and the reason you have been at it for some 50 years now, is because we all understand there is actual real evidence to support the Christian claims, while we do not debate these other things you mention, because there is no such evidence.

Childish examples are sometimes the only way to demonstrate the extreme foolishness of religious claims.

This would be just one of the reasons your post become so dreadfully long. They are filled with things that would not be relevant to the conversation, along with the fact that with me, you seldom ever address the points I am making, but rather bring in your own arguments, that I would never attempt to make, and then tear these weak arguments down.

And sometimes it becomes necessary do go over the same points again and again when they refused to be swallowed the first time. To explain in detail just why it is that they are nonsense. Because religion is so emotionally close to the heart of believers, that it is a tough nut to crack. It takes patience.

rwj wrote:
We all understand that a body coming back to life is not in any way, scientifically possible. But this does not explain whether the event actually happened!

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
It gives us every real reason to doubt it.

Well you see, I have never attempted to make the argument that, "there were no real reasons to doubt." In fact, on more than one occasion, I have stated that, "I understand doubt, and can understand the reasons why there are those who doubt."

However, you are actually making my point. In other words, you are admitting that there are only, "reasons to doubt." You are not claiming that these things did not happen as a matter of fact, because you actually cannot rightly do so.

The only thing you can offer is your doubt, along with the reason for your doubt. I have acknowledged this from my point of view as well. In other words, I have acknowledged that I cannot demonstrate or prove what it is I believe concerning these things, rather all I can do is to give the reasons, along with the evidence why I believe as I do.

I seems then that the difference between you, and I is, I tend to deal in facts, while others seem to be in some sort of dreamworld.

What you have also not done is provide any real reason to suppose that this apparently absurd claim has any potential to be valid. So we are left with an apparently absurd claim with no real reason to believe it, and every real reason to doubt it. What reasonable conclusion should be drawn from this?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Reasons to believe that Jesus came back to life and flew away: because some of his followers claimed that it happened.

Another statement of desperation, because if all we had were, "some of his followers claimed it happened", then I highly doubt we would be continuing to discuss this. It also would shed sort of a bad light on one who has spent the better part of his life, attempting to refute something with such little evidence to support it. This point alone certainly seems to demonstrate that there would be far more evidence concerning these things than, "some of his followers claimed that it happened."

Now we are getting somewhere. Finally after only four years, you have at least indicated that there is some actual "evidence" that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and then flew off into the clouds.

Please provide this evidence. That's all you ever had to do.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Reasons to doubt that Jesus came back to life and flew away: all common observation, common experience and common sense.

Are you attempting to claim that everything happens according to "common observation, common experience and common sense?" Or, is the argument that this is what usually happens? Because, I am not thinking that anyone at all is attempting to argue that the events recorded in the NT would be, "common observation, common experience and common sense."

Well... yes! It has been observed throughout history that the dead do not return to life. And modern science can explain just why this is. Because literally within minutes of being deprived of oxygen brain and nerve cells begin to disintegrate. In warm conditions the cells of the body can begin to swell because of bacterial growth. This can occur within just a few hours if the body is not kept cool. As happens to all "rotten" meat. There are reasons why things occur, and these reasons are understood.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
As a matter of unbiased contemplation, it's not really much of a contest, is it!

You would be correct if all we were talking about was what would be "common observation, common experience and common sense." Which is the point I have just made above.

True. But you have determined that make believe should be added into the mix. Which, in your mind at least, changes the formula entirely. With make believe anything is possible. Without make believe, only those thing which have been observed to be possible... are possible.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But it is the bias, the predisposition, the WISH, of believers to believe based on faith and gullibility, that makes all the difference to believers.

Here is another one of your statements that is made as a statement of fact, when it is certainly an assumption. More than likely it is an assumption based upon many Christians you have dealt with, and you assume that all must operate in the same way, but it is an assumption, none the less.

Do you deny that believers routinely cite faith as a virtue? I have been in many debates in which faith is cited as the final bastion of belief when all appeals to evidence and proof have failed. Since faith is genuine, it cannot be disproved. Faith is like an illusion held captive in a sealed room. It's safe from all harm.

Moreover, this same exact statement can be turned on you as well. Think about it. You have been at this for some 50 years. You seem to believe that your position is a proven, closed, and shut case, while I admit, and understand that I could be wrong, and that there are reasons for doubt. SO, who is it really who has, "the bias, the predisposition, the WISH, to believe based on faith and gullibility, that makes all the difference?"

There WAS a time when I considered the possibility that someone would pull out an argument that I couldn't overcome. In which case I would be the one forced back to the drawing board to consider what it was I thought I believed. But after fifty years and thousands of discussions, so such argument has appeared. I am no longer worried.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Christianity is based on unfounded assumptions and baseless assertions

This is another one of your opinions stated as a fact. If it were true that Christianity was based upon, "unfounded assumptions and baseless assertions" then I would highly doubt that you would put forth such efforts? It would be senseless. However, you understand that this is not the case, which means you understand that there are very good reasons to believe, and this is what you are attempting to combat. Your statement above, is desperate, and a form of the wishful thinking you accuse others of.

This should be easy to overcome then. All you have to do is provide some well founded assumptions and some assertions which are firmly based in hard evidence. I am pretty sure however, after four years on this forum, if you had any well founded assumptions and assertions which are firmly based in evidence, you would have already provided them. Your hands, I am afraid, appear to be empty however.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And yet religion is failing in the well educated west.

And again, I fail to see a point. Unless of course this somehow brings some comfort.

Religion is an intellectual attempt to make sense of things. Once religion was the only game in town. Now religion is in the process of withering and dying as an intellectual explanation for things. Which would not be occurring if religion were actually undeniably true.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This is only occurring because science has reached the point where it can explain the operation of the universe perfectly well without recourse to supernatural intervention.

Which is exactly what it is suppose to do. What is the point? The universe works upon certain laws. These laws were set in place. Would this mean that the laws cannot and never have been broken? This is the point, science can only tell you how the universe works, based upon the laws of the universe. It cannot tell you if, and whether they can, or have been broken.

"Maybe" there was a time when certain special reindeer, and certain specially made brooms, could fly. But we don't really deal with maybe, do we? Maybe is make believe. We deal with what can be observed to be true right now. Because make believe, those things that we can imagine in our minds but never actually experience, while they maybe fun to daydream about, are a waste of time in the real world. Besides, quidditch looks dangerous anywhere outside of the imagination and the movie screen.

Tired of the NOnsense wrote"
If you want to overcome this objection, come back when you can explain how the universe could not possibly exist without supernatural intervention (intelligent design), but your made up and assumed to exist intelligent designer seems to exist perfectly well in your imagination without the benefit of intelligent design.

This is not an objection that needs to be overcome. Well all believe the universe was set in motion, and we all believe that it operates upon certain laws. So then, no matter how the universe was set into motion, nor the laws it is set upon, would demonstrate that the laws can never be broken.

This is not an objection that CAN be overcome. So Christians tend to gloss it over. Just as you have done here.

Next, we will deal with the fantasy world many seem to be in. Because, I did not make up in my imagination some sort of intelligent designer. Rather, there are claims made in the NT, that the natural laws of the universe were broken, and there is evidence to support these claims, which is demonstrated by the fact that you have spent the better part of your life attempting to refute those claims, to no avail, which is why you continue.

So... you refuse to accept that modern science, which has given us all of our modern WORKING technology, is right about indicating that the universe is ruled by natural laws which may not be violated under any known circumstances, but you accept that a bunch of fishermen witnessed the breaking of natural laws 2,000 years ago because they say so? And what have these fishermen given us? A 2,000 year old empty claim!

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Science is only attempting to discover what is true.

Next, science can only tell us what would be scientifically possible, it cannot tell you if an event actually has occurred. In other words, simply because an event is not scientifically possible, would not necessitate that it did not occur. Science is only concerned with the natural workings, and laws of the universe. It is not concerned with if there may be other things at work, other than the natural.

Yes and no. Science cannot tell if an event has occurred without a certain amount of physical evidence, this is true. It is NOT true that science cannot establish to a high degree of certainly things that are not possible, and and are therefore unrealistic claims. Just as you dismiss quidditch and flying reindeer as unrealistic.



Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Your assertion that the early followers of Jesus actually witnessed a risen corpse, one that would subsequently fly off up into the sky, not only assumes that these witnesses were telling the truth, but that they witnessed something which reason and common sense indicates was impossible.

Could you please demonstrate where I have made any such "assertions?" I really do not believe I have. If not, then again we can see, you work upon assumptions.

If you are NOT asserting that the early followers of Jesus actually witnessed a risen corpse, one that would subsequently fly off up into the sky, please state that for the record now. And if you are NOT making the assertion that Jesus returned to life and flew away, then I am at a loss to understand what we have been debating these last four years.

[FarWanderer]

There is a current thread on this site, that poses that we, "should put God aside for a few years." Once this is done, we would then turn our attention to the poor, and needy. The question then becomes, "Would we have a better world?"

Well, I cannot speak for any other religion in the world, but as a Christian, I would like to ask, does Christianity have anything at all to do with, and, or, does it ever promise to produce a, "better world?"

In other words, is it the objective of Christianity to produce better behaving people, in order to produce a better world?

I don't think it promises it per se, but I think it's an objective. In fact, I can't think of any other objective that wouldn't be equivalent to it in some way.

Next, are we under the impression, that if there was no religion, and no belief in any sort of god, that this would produce a better world?

No. Religion is enriching and perhaps even necessary. However, religions must also have the ability to evolve. And they do. Today's Christianity is very different from what it was at first (and for the better IMO).

If we were to be able to rid the world of any sort of religion, would this rid the world of greed, selfishness, envy, strife, jealousy, bigotry, warfare, etc.?

Of course not.

Even if it may rid the world less of these things, would it really rid it enough to even notice? Do we really believe, that it is simply religion that produces these things in us?

No. But the late Christopher Hitchens said that only religion could lead a good person to do a bad thing. There is truth to that.

Or, do we all understand, that whether we hold some sort of belief in a god or not, that we are all guilty of these sort of things listed above, and that we all struggle against them?

Yes. We are all sinners.