ChatterBank2 mins ago
What Is the Future of Religion?
73 Answers
The resurgence of religion has been dramatic in the countries of the former Soviet Union. In Russia alone, 50 percent of the population now declare themselves to be Orthodox, and millions are adherents of other religions. Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism are among the long-established ones,
Answers
you only say it's rubbish because you're to scared to step out in faith, you'd rather follow the crowd!
11:31 Fri 16th Nov 2012
Ha Ha! Offering the book "Life how did it get here? Evolution or Creation?" As some sort of evidence base against evolution this once again illustrates the paucity of the argument of creationist thinking, and offers further evidence of the complete lack of scientific understanding.
The book itself is short on any informational content. Lots of pretty pictures, and with a level of writing suitable for middle school at best.
This 1 book is supposed to somehow counter the 100s of thousands of published papers, reviews, presentations and books which act as the foundation of the massive edifice that is the body of evidence for evolution.
It is a book chock-full of selective misquotation, oversimplification and misrepresentation. Any student of science would be able to spot the flaws.It erects strawmen, argues from incredulity, and attempts to promote the argument from design. It misrepresents probability arguments, confuses populations with individuals, and neglects to mention all the glaring examples of poor design that we are left with.
This is fit for a laugh, and maybe could find use in the toilet, but is void of any intellectual credibility.
The book itself is short on any informational content. Lots of pretty pictures, and with a level of writing suitable for middle school at best.
This 1 book is supposed to somehow counter the 100s of thousands of published papers, reviews, presentations and books which act as the foundation of the massive edifice that is the body of evidence for evolution.
It is a book chock-full of selective misquotation, oversimplification and misrepresentation. Any student of science would be able to spot the flaws.It erects strawmen, argues from incredulity, and attempts to promote the argument from design. It misrepresents probability arguments, confuses populations with individuals, and neglects to mention all the glaring examples of poor design that we are left with.
This is fit for a laugh, and maybe could find use in the toilet, but is void of any intellectual credibility.
Take a look for yourselves at the scientific triumph that is "Life, How did it get here?" If you fancy a laugh.
http://
http://
Goodlife, //As your watch ticks off 60 seconds, more than 30 people die from infectious diseases, 11 lose the battle against cancer, and 9 are cut down by heart disease. And you know that those are just some of the diseases afflicting people; many suffer and die from other causes.
A big word is Why? //
Just a guess, but could it be because your God created these diseases?
A big word is Why? //
Just a guess, but could it be because your God created these diseases?
-- answer removed --
Lazy@ For good reasons given in this book, it would be unwise for Christians to get involved in scientific controversies or to promote unproven scientific theories. For example, some may become obsessed with fear of electromagnetism. Then, with the best of intentions, they could begin to encourage others to dispose of their microwave ovens, electric blankets, and the like. Of course, everyone is free to make a choice, without criticism from others. But those who choose a different option should be able to expect the same consideration. So, it is wise to spread sensationalism. Whether many unusual claims are true or not has yet to be proved. If some of these claims eventually prove unfounded or even wrong, then those championing such claims not only look foolish but may have unintentionally caused harm to others.
You take a closer look at references.
Doing so will help see and discern that what the scientists and evolutionist propound about where life came from.
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, Blind as those who do not want to see.
You take a closer look at references.
Doing so will help see and discern that what the scientists and evolutionist propound about where life came from.
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, Blind as those who do not want to see.
I love these threads: they are fantastic examples of logic v unreason, and show clearly why unreason always wins over logic (in the minds of those who spout it). It really doesn't matter to people like Goodlife what evidence anyone provides, or how reasonable someone may argue, because their minds are closed against reason. To try and get such a person to argue their case logically is spitting in the wind.
Just a thought, though I usually keep well out of these discussions nowadays. So many of the atheists arguments centre round scientific 'fact' versus religious 'superstition'. But we know that so many so-called scientific 'facts' have been disproved as we learn more. The generally accepted definion of the term: scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).
Can't we perhaps accept that science and spiritual search ( I prefer to use this term rather than 'religion') are just different ways that people use to try to understand life, the world and the universe. Neither has the full answer and probably never will, though if believers are right, they may gain a fuller understanding in a future existence (or not...).
I avoid the term religion in this discussion because, as I have said many times before, all religions no doubt have a core of truth (as does science), but in both this core often becomes distorted by human arrogance, power-seeking and others of the less attractive human attributes.
I'll probably be sorry I entered into this again, because I normally find this thread disappointingly unconstructive, but here we go anyway...
Can't we perhaps accept that science and spiritual search ( I prefer to use this term rather than 'religion') are just different ways that people use to try to understand life, the world and the universe. Neither has the full answer and probably never will, though if believers are right, they may gain a fuller understanding in a future existence (or not...).
I avoid the term religion in this discussion because, as I have said many times before, all religions no doubt have a core of truth (as does science), but in both this core often becomes distorted by human arrogance, power-seeking and others of the less attractive human attributes.
I'll probably be sorry I entered into this again, because I normally find this thread disappointingly unconstructive, but here we go anyway...
Your arguments are just empy philosophising, goodlife - devoid of any meaning.
You continually create a strawman about evolution - what we should expect to see, what actually drives it. You have a warped, simplistic and frankly wrong understanding of basic biology and probablity and statistics.This is consistently the tactic adopted by creationists.You ignore the vast panapoly of evidence, gathered over centuries, across a wide range of scientific disciplines, which all support the consensus view regarding evolution. You argue for ignorance and stupidity, you recommend that it is better to believe a lie so long as it supports your faith and you reject the truth whenever it challenges your faith based orthodoxy.You propose that the standard of evidence for evolution rests upon demonstrating a "crocoduck" an absurd concept which demonstrates your scientific incompetence and ignore the actual evidence of evolutionary change demonstrated within plants, insects and microbes.
Almost by default, evangelical believers are liars.None of you are willing to learn enough to understand the science. None of you are willing to approach the evidence with an open mind. None of you are willing to challenge the foundations of your faith.
As for maggies comment about "stepping out in faith" - this is not any sort of recipe for moving humanity forward - its just a facile attempt to defend faith when no defence is viable.
This stubborn resistance to reality is why the zealous are increasingly irrelevant. Like a vestigial organ, you are becoming redundant to humanity - mostly passive, mostly causing no harm, but occasionally responsible for a flair up that demands surgical excision.
It could in some respects be considered a kind of demonstration of evolution in action. Stubborn resistance to change, refusal to adapt, dependent upon a niche belief system for survival, a niche that is eroded year after year.
Zombie religion - dead but doesn't know it.
You continually create a strawman about evolution - what we should expect to see, what actually drives it. You have a warped, simplistic and frankly wrong understanding of basic biology and probablity and statistics.This is consistently the tactic adopted by creationists.You ignore the vast panapoly of evidence, gathered over centuries, across a wide range of scientific disciplines, which all support the consensus view regarding evolution. You argue for ignorance and stupidity, you recommend that it is better to believe a lie so long as it supports your faith and you reject the truth whenever it challenges your faith based orthodoxy.You propose that the standard of evidence for evolution rests upon demonstrating a "crocoduck" an absurd concept which demonstrates your scientific incompetence and ignore the actual evidence of evolutionary change demonstrated within plants, insects and microbes.
Almost by default, evangelical believers are liars.None of you are willing to learn enough to understand the science. None of you are willing to approach the evidence with an open mind. None of you are willing to challenge the foundations of your faith.
As for maggies comment about "stepping out in faith" - this is not any sort of recipe for moving humanity forward - its just a facile attempt to defend faith when no defence is viable.
This stubborn resistance to reality is why the zealous are increasingly irrelevant. Like a vestigial organ, you are becoming redundant to humanity - mostly passive, mostly causing no harm, but occasionally responsible for a flair up that demands surgical excision.
It could in some respects be considered a kind of demonstration of evolution in action. Stubborn resistance to change, refusal to adapt, dependent upon a niche belief system for survival, a niche that is eroded year after year.
Zombie religion - dead but doesn't know it.
@beckersjay
No, we cannot except that scientific search and spiritual search are equally valid attempts to define the human condition, to explain the world and the universe around us.
It would be more useful, I think, to offer up some specific examples that serve to illustrate your point that scientific facts are disproven.More often than not, you will find it is not scientific fact that has changed- it is that new evidence has become available that allows us to more accurately model the universe around us.
Religious orthodoxies on the other hand, are absolutely incapable of this. More, they propose an ultimate truth- that their particular brand of faith represents the absolute truth- but this cannot be right. JWs and other cults are incapable of moderation for this reason. Thats why they reject anything that challenges their worldview.
Science moves by forward because of continual challenges to the orthodoxy that help to refine and adjust the theory until we getter a better fit that explains the observable facts or phenomena.
A spiritual search explains nothing about medicine. It cannot develop new vaccines, or refine the internal combustion engine. It does nothing to explain or address Ash dieback, or livestock husbandry, or develop new strains of cereals to cope with changing climatic conditions or offer a greater yield.A prayer or a seance or a meditation cannot get us to Mars, or the Moon.
And no, I absolutely reject the notion that neither science nor spiritualism can ever offer the truth - science can and does, because it moves, it adapts all the time. Spiritual search confines itself to seeking out examples of confirmation bias and ignores everything else.
And you talk about such discussions being "unconstructive" - I reject that notion too - the alternative you propose is a kind of laissez-faire lets all get along appeasement, and appeasement never works.
No, we cannot except that scientific search and spiritual search are equally valid attempts to define the human condition, to explain the world and the universe around us.
It would be more useful, I think, to offer up some specific examples that serve to illustrate your point that scientific facts are disproven.More often than not, you will find it is not scientific fact that has changed- it is that new evidence has become available that allows us to more accurately model the universe around us.
Religious orthodoxies on the other hand, are absolutely incapable of this. More, they propose an ultimate truth- that their particular brand of faith represents the absolute truth- but this cannot be right. JWs and other cults are incapable of moderation for this reason. Thats why they reject anything that challenges their worldview.
Science moves by forward because of continual challenges to the orthodoxy that help to refine and adjust the theory until we getter a better fit that explains the observable facts or phenomena.
A spiritual search explains nothing about medicine. It cannot develop new vaccines, or refine the internal combustion engine. It does nothing to explain or address Ash dieback, or livestock husbandry, or develop new strains of cereals to cope with changing climatic conditions or offer a greater yield.A prayer or a seance or a meditation cannot get us to Mars, or the Moon.
And no, I absolutely reject the notion that neither science nor spiritualism can ever offer the truth - science can and does, because it moves, it adapts all the time. Spiritual search confines itself to seeking out examples of confirmation bias and ignores everything else.
And you talk about such discussions being "unconstructive" - I reject that notion too - the alternative you propose is a kind of laissez-faire lets all get along appeasement, and appeasement never works.
Cupid, // you only say it's rubbish because you're to scared to step out in faith, you'd rather follow the crowd!//
What exactly is ‘stepping out in faith’ if not following the crowd? We don’t belong to groups of people where everyone thinks alike – but you do. We give rational reasons for our non-belief – not least related to the plethora of contradictions, errors and highly dubious claims the ‘holy’ books contain - but I’ve yet to see anyone here offer a rational reason to believe. If you have one I’d be interested in hearing it.
Beckersjay. // all religions no doubt have a core of truth //
Why ‘no doubt’? To be free of doubt we need to possess positive evidence that there is no doubt – and that evidence doesn’t exist.
What exactly is ‘stepping out in faith’ if not following the crowd? We don’t belong to groups of people where everyone thinks alike – but you do. We give rational reasons for our non-belief – not least related to the plethora of contradictions, errors and highly dubious claims the ‘holy’ books contain - but I’ve yet to see anyone here offer a rational reason to believe. If you have one I’d be interested in hearing it.
Beckersjay. // all religions no doubt have a core of truth //
Why ‘no doubt’? To be free of doubt we need to possess positive evidence that there is no doubt – and that evidence doesn’t exist.
@ Lazygun
"More often than not, you will find it is not scientific fact that has changed- it is that new evidence has become available that allows us to more accurately model the universe around us". So, we were right all along except that new evidence shows we were wrong...?
I'm ignoring your comments about religious orthodoxies as I specifically excluded them from my comment, for reasons I explained.
"Spiritual search confines itself to seeking out examples of confirmation bias and ignores everything else." Maybe you're just getting hung up on religious orthodoxy again...? A true spiritual search doesn't dismiss or ignore anything - can you say the same about the atheist arguments? Non-atheists don't reject science - again note I'm excluding religious orthodoxies...
"A prayer or a seance or a meditation cannot get us to Mars, or the Moon."
You could be right, but do you have scientific proof of this statement?
"More often than not, you will find it is not scientific fact that has changed- it is that new evidence has become available that allows us to more accurately model the universe around us". So, we were right all along except that new evidence shows we were wrong...?
I'm ignoring your comments about religious orthodoxies as I specifically excluded them from my comment, for reasons I explained.
"Spiritual search confines itself to seeking out examples of confirmation bias and ignores everything else." Maybe you're just getting hung up on religious orthodoxy again...? A true spiritual search doesn't dismiss or ignore anything - can you say the same about the atheist arguments? Non-atheists don't reject science - again note I'm excluding religious orthodoxies...
"A prayer or a seance or a meditation cannot get us to Mars, or the Moon."
You could be right, but do you have scientific proof of this statement?
@Beckersjay
From your post;
"Spiritual search confines itself to seeking out examples of confirmation bias and ignores everything else." Maybe you're just getting hung up on religious orthodoxy again...? A true spiritual search doesn't dismiss or ignore anything - can you say the same about the atheist arguments? Non-atheists don't reject science - again note I'm excluding religious orthodoxies.."
So, you are chiding me for not fully understanding your term "spirtual search" Well, if we are to have a meaningful dialogue, you will have to define your terms. Most people understand what is meant by a scientific search. You need to define what constitutes a spiritual search, and further, you have explain why religious orthodoxies should be excluded from that term.
I think religious orthodoxy has to form part of an umbrella term like "spiritual search", because sprituality is a substantive part of the essence of any religion.
You issued a further challenge in your response.
I had said "A prayer or a seance or a meditation cannot get us to Mars, or the Moon." In your subsequent post, you asked me if I could prove it.
Asking someone to prove a negative is illogical. A quick review of our knowledge base through google will prove that we have visited the Moon and Mars using science, but, as far as I am aware, you cannot offer any proof that visiting our neighbouring planets via prayer, seance or meditation is possible. My point still stands, therefore, and your challenge is without foundation, unless you can offer proof to the contrary.
The atheist principle is not close minded -it is just very very simple and very rational. It is the premise that, given current knowledge and evidence, the likelihood of the existence of a divine guiding spirit or entity, of any description, is extremely improbable given our current knowledge.It is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.
Most atheists would go on to say that if you could offer strong empirical, reproducible evidence to the contrary, they would likely change their mind.
And your point to Beso is wrong. "Science" is not open to interpretation.Rather, part of what constitutes science is the interpretation of the data and results of experiments and observations to develop hypotheses, or to support or challenge existing hypothesis to arrive at a model of how the world works.
From your post;
"Spiritual search confines itself to seeking out examples of confirmation bias and ignores everything else." Maybe you're just getting hung up on religious orthodoxy again...? A true spiritual search doesn't dismiss or ignore anything - can you say the same about the atheist arguments? Non-atheists don't reject science - again note I'm excluding religious orthodoxies.."
So, you are chiding me for not fully understanding your term "spirtual search" Well, if we are to have a meaningful dialogue, you will have to define your terms. Most people understand what is meant by a scientific search. You need to define what constitutes a spiritual search, and further, you have explain why religious orthodoxies should be excluded from that term.
I think religious orthodoxy has to form part of an umbrella term like "spiritual search", because sprituality is a substantive part of the essence of any religion.
You issued a further challenge in your response.
I had said "A prayer or a seance or a meditation cannot get us to Mars, or the Moon." In your subsequent post, you asked me if I could prove it.
Asking someone to prove a negative is illogical. A quick review of our knowledge base through google will prove that we have visited the Moon and Mars using science, but, as far as I am aware, you cannot offer any proof that visiting our neighbouring planets via prayer, seance or meditation is possible. My point still stands, therefore, and your challenge is without foundation, unless you can offer proof to the contrary.
The atheist principle is not close minded -it is just very very simple and very rational. It is the premise that, given current knowledge and evidence, the likelihood of the existence of a divine guiding spirit or entity, of any description, is extremely improbable given our current knowledge.It is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.
Most atheists would go on to say that if you could offer strong empirical, reproducible evidence to the contrary, they would likely change their mind.
And your point to Beso is wrong. "Science" is not open to interpretation.Rather, part of what constitutes science is the interpretation of the data and results of experiments and observations to develop hypotheses, or to support or challenge existing hypothesis to arrive at a model of how the world works.
