FREE TAPATALK APP

ruckenheim · 14th November 2007, 12:56 PM

Hi.

The recent 'wave' of high profile skeptics (Dawson, Penn & Teller, Robin Williams, David Attenborough etc.) and a lot of media focus via newspapers, documentaries, books, youtubes and material on the usenet are perhaps enough to see a small shift away from religion, especially in young people.

Any data supporting this?

Please share your thoughts.

Susan Gerbic · 14th November 2007, 02:41 PM

I love Robin Williams, is he a skeptic also?

I find young people are mostly non-religious, but go back to their religious roots when they have children. Just a rebellion kind of thing.

I think that skeptics are making a small dent in the overall religious world. As an atheist I think I receive less distaste when people discover my beliefs, but then that could just be me?

I almost think that the influx of new religions into American mainstream are helping. They are helping get the message out that we need to become more global in our thinking, and they are helping the Christians circle the wagons to fight out over anything that feels like they are having their precious beliefs attacked.

I don't have the answer here, but hopefully someone will...

Susan

PAC · 14th November 2007, 02:50 PM

The good news is:

Raised in the 50's and 60's there was musch less rational discussion about religion than I see now. Things are going in a good direction.

The bad news is:

As a college student of the late 60's and early 70's I thought we had made some lasting changes in our society. At that time I could never have envisioned the influence of George Bush, The Moral Majority, the Christian right, etc. To be honest, our society scares the hell out of me!

Myriad · 14th November 2007, 02:54 PM

I can't provide any statistics, but I'd like to try to add some perspective to your question.

A long time ago, not long after starting college, I read a joke "guide to college life" distributed by a campus humor club. It included a section called something like "This Year's Guide to Fashion," which went something like this:

Quote:

The hot style on campus for guys this fall is a shirt and a pair of pants. This is a popular look for girls too, but girls might want to substitute a sweater top for the shirt, or a skirt for the pants...

The point is, there's change and there's change. There's "this year's hot style" and there's what everyone actually wears, shirts and pants. The slow changes that people take for granted ("girls can wear pants now?") are the more important. Fundamentalist Christianity was hot for a while. A progressive backlash (frontlash?) will now be hot for another while. But the real underlying change is slow. Religion and Rationality aren't in a sprint. Even calling it a marathon is exaggeration. Think of two continents having a drift race.

Nor are religion and rationality the only worldviews in the race. Here's an update from the announcer:

Way out in front, holding onto the lead it gained with its sustained surge of strength through the last century, but starting to show some signs of fatigue, is Impending Secular Doom. In second place, still gaining slowly on ISD after appearing seemingly out of nowhere in the 1980s, is Pure Noise. In the pack, Corporate Policy has been moving up and is now neck and neck with Clique Nation. And bringing up the rear, it looks like... yes, indeed... Rationality has caught up a step on Religion!

Respectfully,
Myriad

DOC · 14th November 2007, 02:57 PM

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

joobz · 14th November 2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined. He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

Magyar · 14th November 2007, 03:02 PM

I don't think so. As Susan indicated, the influx of other religions and the popularity of new age stuff among the young is diluting the waters from the homogenous xian front.

The new age stuff is perhaps less in your face, but it's still as full of woo and intolerance to rational thinking as xians. Just visit some martial arts forums I go to and see all the qi/chi , accupuncture and herbal medicine stuff discussed for example.

Cosmo · 14th November 2007, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined. He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

Doc, are you actively trying to avoid learning anything?

DOC · 14th November 2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

My post was related to the topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

DOC · 14th November 2007, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Doc, are you actively trying to avoid learning anything?

My post was related to the thread topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

And in answer to your non-topic related question, No, are you.

Don't you think its important to learn that the man who many believe is the greatest scientist of all time wrote 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation.

joobz · 14th November 2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

My post was related to the topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

I am simply informing that you seem to be a troll. What you do with this information is up to you.

The reason for this is that you had made this appeal to authority before. And were corrected, before. But you repeated the same foolish logical fallicy. This is the behavior of the troll.

Hokulele · 14th November 2007, 03:35 PM

Considering that Newton did not invent calculus, what exactly is DOC's point?

Achán hiNidráne · 14th November 2007, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

This is the behavior of the troll.

Or the behavior of your average Christian.

joobz · 14th November 2007, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

My post was related to the thread topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

And in answer to your non-topic related question, No, are you.

Don't you think its important to learn that the man who many believe is the greatest scientist of all time wrote 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation.

And Isaac_Newton^WP also had mercury poisoning, which is believed to be why he was a bit crazy.

Achán hiNidráne · 14th November 2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Considering that Newton did not invent calculus, what exactly is DOC's point?

It's simple,

1. Newton was a respected scientist.
2. Newton believed in God. (And alchemy, not to mention unicorns.)
Ergo: God exists.

Errrrrrr.... yeah, I don't see the "logic" either.

Cosmo · 14th November 2007, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

My post was related to the thread topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

You're funny

Quote:

And in answer to your non-topic related question, No, are you.

Oh. You've admitted that you're not trying to learn anything.

...I kinda wasn't expecting that response. Well, I guess it clarifies a fair bit about you...

Achán hiNidráne · 14th November 2007, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cosmo

You're funny

I'm not laughing.

Cosmo · 14th November 2007, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

I'm not laughing.

Then you're making the (fatal?) mistake of taking DOC seriously.

Kopji · 14th November 2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

He studied Hebrew scholarship and ancient and modern theologians at great length, and became convinced that Christianity had departed from the original teachings of Christ.

He's not off to a blazing endorsement of the Christian enterprise.

articulett · 14th November 2007, 07:41 PM

Religions is more virulent-- they promise you "happily ever after" if you believe the right thing strongly enough and eternal torment if you don't. But rationality works. And the internet destroys the secrecy and mystery needed to keep the faithful from realizing that people have been making up this crap in all sorts of infinite varieties for eons. Doc is the bleating moans of a dying breed. As science finds out more... woo has fewer and few curtains to hide behind.

And with spokespeople like Haggard, Bush, Falwell, Phelps, Osama, Chopra, Ratzinger,DOC, plumjam, and T'ai-- religions seems to have turned into a club few young people will want to be a part of. Stupid, old, and sexist make for very poor leaders and role models. I think everyone is ready for a permanent changing of the guard.

Dorian Gray · 14th November 2007, 08:42 PM

Odd - second time today that I've used the same post in two threads, but:

Rational arguments don't work on religious people - if they did, there'd be no religious people. - House

ruckenheim · 15th November 2007, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by sgf8

I love Robin Williams, is he a skeptic also?

There's a lot of skepticism in his live show on broadway.

Here's an example on youtube: /watch?v=HIMCH12zAYY

The bit about Jerry Christ, brother of Jesus, cracks me up every time!

PBTree · 15th November 2007, 02:40 PM

I'm sorry to say that religion is winning in this land. Our prime minister (who by the way is a woo) has decided to give $40million so that the catholic youth can all meet at a race course in Sydney. How ironic is that. The catholic (give me your money and let me abuse your children) church, one of the richest businesses in the world and the taxpayer has to give them all that money.

Rationality has gone down the drain.

ruckenheim · 15th November 2007, 03:39 PM

So, what do you suppose rationals have to do to stem this tidal wave?

Darth Rotor · 15th November 2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by ruckenheim

So, what do you suppose rationals have to do to stem this tidal wave?

Seppoku is an option, though perhaps not what you had in mind.

DR

Safe-Keeper · 15th November 2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

Repeat for Chinese, Indian and Islamic scholars of old, and the creators of the breathtaking Great Wall of China and the pyramids of Egypt and the Aztec empire. These people were smart, no question about it. All of them probably adhered to their culture's beliefs in some way or another.

rocketdodger · 15th November 2007, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Don't you think its important to learn that the man who many believe is the greatest scientist of all time wrote 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation.

Don't you think its important to learn that he was actually a heretic?

H3LL · 16th November 2007, 12:24 AM

DOC's post is an indicator of how things are changing.

A person like DOC is a liar for Jesus and does not care for discussion or examination and dogmaticaly refuses to learn from their errors however many times they are pointed out to them.

They have earned, in their own deluded imagination, their evangelical brownie points and to them the job is done. Repeating lies as frequently as possible would seem to be their only purpose.

Luckily, more people immediately see the lies for exactly what they are. And it is thanks to people like DOC that phrases like "Lying for Jesus" gain a more common useage and become instantly understood.

What people like DOC are totally unaware of is that they is not going to convince any skeptic with lies and the faithful are already lying for Jesus in their own right. They will certainly manage to swing the opinion of the fence-sitter that dislikes being lied to.

I'm pretty sure the fence-sitters will not drop off the fence on DOC's side.

.

Safe-Keeper · 16th November 2007, 05:11 PM

I don't think religion is dying out any time soon. I think lots of people need it, and need it too much to let go of it easily. And religious thought seems to be part of our natural instincts/urges. With these two combined, I think religion will stay for a long while yet.

It'd be nice, however, if I lived to see only a single country where religion was actually completely gone. Not oppressed or hidden or whatever, but actually nonexistent. Not that the rest of the world would look at them and go 'wow, we need to try that!' - it seems the only atheistic countries getting attention, for some reason (very likely involving fundie propaganda

) is the USSR and People's Republic of China.

maxpower1227 · 16th November 2007, 05:46 PM

I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of.

I used to be a full-fledged Christian, but the more I learn, and the more I just think about things, the more I find myself doubting whether there is ANY supernatural reality. Certainly the Bible is not historically accurate, and it's likely no religious text is. While that fact alone doesn't prove the overall concept of an afterlife/etc false, it would be a blow to most believers.

However, whatever I ultimately believe, I can't help but have contempt for people who actively seek to purge religion from the human experience. First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times.

My feeling is this: even if I become a full-fledged atheist, if one of my loved ones who happens to be deeply religious is on their death and the only thing comforting them is the thought of getting to see their deceased loved ones again - if some jack*** comes in as they lay dying and says "terribly sorry, but there is no afterlife, and you're just going to rot in the ground. Look, I have proof...", they'd probably be missing a few teeth.

There is a place in this world for both religion and rationality, as long as a balance is maintained. Sometimes it's best to consider what's best for the masses, rather than what's correct.

(Side note: Are we really counting Robin Williams as a credible skeptic? What exactly makes him qualified to deal with any scientific or philosophical topics? Is it all the drugs he's taken? This seems kinda similar to touting Rosie or Charlie Sheen as a 9/11 skeptic)

Autolite · 18th November 2007, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times.

This is pretty much the way I see it also. Religion, and all paranormal belief for that matter, is here to stay. It's all BS of course, but it's an integral part of our existence. I remember reading something in the Skeptics Dictionary that illustrated the point quite clearly. Basically it asserted than most humans need irrational belief in their live simply to make life tolerable ...

Apology · 18th November 2007, 02:39 AM

There's still more of them than there are of us.

H3LL · 18th November 2007, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of..............

Originally Posted by Autolite

This is pretty much the way I see it also. Religion, and all paranormal belief for that matter, is here to stay. It's all BS of course, but it's an integral part of our existence. I remember reading something in the Skeptics Dictionary that illustrated the point quite clearly. Basically it asserted than most humans need irrational belief in their live simply to make life tolerable ...

That would be all well and good if it was not harmful as well. It is and should be challenged.

Also, if some religions were not openly hostile to scientific advance and in some cases are, have and will kill to further their cause, it should be challenged. It is fair to say that some religions were hostile first.

I don't accept that it's "here to stay". Children are born atheist and to suggest that it is difficult or impossible to overcome built-in instincts is obviously not so by looking out of the window. It could be argued that the desire to enslave others is "part of our existence". happily, slavery has mostly gone as an acceptable institution.

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

(Side note: Are we really counting Robin Williams as a credible skeptic? What exactly makes him qualified to deal with any scientific or philosophical topics?

This is typical of the use of argument from authority, often seen from the religious and also typical of the woolly/fallacious thinking that is encouraged within religious dogma as many religions desire to be the only 'authoritative' source.

I'm in no position to comment on Robin Williams as a sceptic, however, his scepticism is judged by what is presented. Drug use, what colour hair he has, qualifications or how famous he is is irrelevant. If his, or anybody's arguments are sound...they are of value. When his arguments show little or no scepticism, it will be self evident.

.

Gregoire · 18th November 2007, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by H3LL

I don't accept that it's "here to stay". Children are born atheist and to suggest that it is difficult or impossible to overcome built-in instincts is obviously not so by looking out of the window. It could be argued that the desire to enslave others is "part of our existence". happily, slavery has mostly gone as an acceptable institution.

A child certainly has to be taught about a god to end up believing in a god, but magical thinking and over reading patterns seems to be the natural state of childhood. Growing up and learning to think rationally, while bringing many obvious advantages, does seem to take a bit of work. So I while I would agree that organized religion is certainly on the decline, isn't it just being replaced by other superstitions?

Gregoire · 18th November 2007, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of.

I used to be a full-fledged Christian, but the more I learn, and the more I just think about things, the more I find myself doubting whether there is ANY supernatural reality. Certainly the Bible is not historically accurate, and it's likely no religious text is. While that fact alone doesn't prove the overall concept of an afterlife/etc false, it would be a blow to most believers.

However, whatever I ultimately believe, I can't help but have contempt for people who actively seek to purge religion from the human experience. First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times.

My feeling is this: even if I become a full-fledged atheist, if one of my loved ones who happens to be deeply religious is on their death and the only thing comforting them is the thought of getting to see their deceased loved ones again - if some jack*** comes in as they lay dying and says "terribly sorry, but there is no afterlife, and you're just going to rot in the ground. Look, I have proof...", they'd probably be missing a few teeth.

There is a place in this world for both religion and rationality, as long as a balance is maintained. Sometimes it's best to consider what's best for the masses, rather than what's correct.

If someone believes in a religion and does not try to push it on others, I have no quarrel with them. Similarly, if a baseball player had to wear his "lucky shirt" whenever he played, again I would not argue with him unless asked by him to give an opinion. But I would use both examples as a barometer of the state of rationality and critical thinking in our society. And that would be the way, in my opinion, to come up with an answer to the OP.

I agree that arguing about religion is not a very fruitful enterprise. And in the example you give, I would even call it malicious. But I do think it is worth it to teach critical thinking to others in a neutral setting in other contexts and let them ultimately figure it out for themselves.

Puppycow · 18th November 2007, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

On the other hand Martin Luther said:
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. "
and
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God. "

He didn't think that reason and religion were compatible, did he?

Puppycow · 18th November 2007, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Considering that Newton did not invent calculus, what exactly is DOC's point?

He didn't? Leibniz also came up with it independently, but of course this is a red herring.

It doesn't matter if Newton also wrote about religion or if he was a believer. He some very good ideas which have survived and some other ideas that turned out to be wrong. There's probably a good reason why no one bothered much with his writings about the Book of Revelation.

Puppycow · 18th November 2007, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

Odd - second time today that I've used the same post in two threads, but:

Rational arguments don't work on religious people - if they did, there'd be no religious people. - House

This is very true. I think it is true of people in general, but especially religious people.

Put religion aside for a second and consider the world of advertising.

Modern ads don't often make appeals to reason, and they certainly don't ever make a reason-only appeal. It's at least 90% image and emotion, and often 100% image and emotion. If appeals to reason worked as advertisement, that's what advertisers would use. They use what has been shown by experience to work.

So, to 'win' as it were, it is important to make it cool to be a skeptic. It has to be emotionally rewarding somehow. It's no fun to be right but hated.

Gregoire · 18th November 2007, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

Newton, as brilliant as he was, was still a product of his time. He was dealing with the available data that was known back then.

Richard Dawkins actually had a lot to say about this issue in The Blind Watchmaker. Before Darwin's time, for instance, he points out one certainly could make the case that there must be a creator somewhere. Things appear to be designed just as it appears that the sun revolves around the earth. But with new information, which comes in all the time, we now know otherwise.

Apology · 18th November 2007, 05:24 PM

I also get to decide what I think is right and what I think is wrong, and get to choose my own punishment when I'm wrong (provided that whatever I did wasn't criminal in some way

). This usually involves an admission of guilt, an apology to the wounded party, and an effort to make amends. I just cut out all the middlemen. It's a lot faster and a lot less painful for everyone. I don't need God to do the right thing.

14th November 2007, 12:56 PM	#1
ruckenheim Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 79	Who's winning? Religion or rationality? Hi. The recent 'wave' of high profile skeptics (Dawson, Penn & Teller, Robin Williams, David Attenborough etc.) and a lot of media focus via newspapers, documentaries, books, youtubes and material on the usenet are perhaps enough to see a small shift away from religion, especially in young people. Any data supporting this? Please share your thoughts.
ruckenheim Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 79	Last edited by ruckenheim; 14th November 2007 at 01:22 PM.

14th November 2007, 02:41 PM	#2
Susan Gerbic Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Salinas Posts: 1,521	I love Robin Williams, is he a skeptic also? I find young people are mostly non-religious, but go back to their religious roots when they have children. Just a rebellion kind of thing. I think that skeptics are making a small dent in the overall religious world. As an atheist I think I receive less distaste when people discover my beliefs, but then that could just be me? I almost think that the influx of new religions into American mainstream are helping. They are helping get the message out that we need to become more global in our thinking, and they are helping the Christians circle the wagons to fight out over anything that feels like they are having their precious beliefs attacked. I don't have the answer here, but hopefully someone will... Susan
	__________________ Quit Complaining and Get Active! formerly known as sgf8

14th November 2007, 02:50 PM	#3
PAC Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 304	The good news is: Raised in the 50's and 60's there was musch less rational discussion about religion than I see now. Things are going in a good direction. The bad news is: As a college student of the late 60's and early 70's I thought we had made some lasting changes in our society. At that time I could never have envisioned the influence of George Bush, The Moral Majority, the Christian right, etc. To be honest, our society scares the hell out of me!
PAC Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 304

14th November 2007, 02:54 PM	#4
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,219	I can't provide any statistics, but I'd like to try to add some perspective to your question. A long time ago, not long after starting college, I read a joke "guide to college life" distributed by a campus humor club. It included a section called something like "This Year's Guide to Fashion," which went something like this: Quote: The hot style on campus for guys this fall is a shirt and a pair of pants. This is a popular look for girls too, but girls might want to substitute a sweater top for the shirt, or a skirt for the pants... The point is, there's change and there's change. There's "this year's hot style" and there's what everyone actually wears, shirts and pants. The slow changes that people take for granted ("girls can wear pants now?") are the more important. Fundamentalist Christianity was hot for a while. A progressive backlash (frontlash?) will now be hot for another while. But the real underlying change is slow. Religion and Rationality aren't in a sprint. Even calling it a marathon is exaggeration. Think of two continents having a drift race. Nor are religion and rationality the only worldviews in the race. Here's an update from the announcer: Way out in front, holding onto the lead it gained with its sustained surge of strength through the last century, but starting to show some signs of fatigue, is Impending Secular Doom. In second place, still gaining slowly on ISD after appearing seemingly out of nowhere in the 1980s, is Pure Noise. In the pack, Corporate Policy has been moving up and is now neck and neck with Clique Nation. And bringing up the rear, it looks like... yes, indeed... Rationality has caught up a step on Religion! Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

14th November 2007, 02:57 PM	#5
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,790	Who's winning? Religion or rationality? Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614
	Last edited by DOC; 14th November 2007 at 03:13 PM. Reason: add 4 words

14th November 2007, 03:02 PM	#6
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,588	Originally Posted by DOC Who's winning? Religion or rationality? Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined. He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

14th November 2007, 03:02 PM	#7
Magyar Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: the edge of reason Posts: 1,564	I don't think so. As Susan indicated, the influx of other religions and the popularity of new age stuff among the young is diluting the waters from the homogenous xian front. The new age stuff is perhaps less in your face, but it's still as full of woo and intolerance to rational thinking as xians. Just visit some martial arts forums I go to and see all the qi/chi , accupuncture and herbal medicine stuff discussed for example.
	__________________ "There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." James Joyce Due to recent cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

14th November 2007, 03:05 PM	#8
Cosmo Radioactive Rationalist Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 1,169	Originally Posted by DOC Who's winning? Religion or rationality? Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined. He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614 Doc, are you actively trying to avoid learning anything?

14th November 2007, 03:18 PM	#9
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,790	Originally Posted by joobz My post was related to the topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.
	Last edited by DOC; 14th November 2007 at 03:20 PM.

14th November 2007, 03:19 PM	#10
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,790	Originally Posted by Cosmo Doc, are you actively trying to avoid learning anything? My post was related to the thread topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation. And in answer to your non-topic related question, No, are you. Don't you think its important to learn that the man who many believe is the greatest scientist of all time wrote 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation.
	Last edited by DOC; 14th November 2007 at 03:28 PM.

14th November 2007, 03:32 PM	#11
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,588	Originally Posted by DOC My post was related to the topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation. I am simply informing that you seem to be a troll. What you do with this information is up to you. The reason for this is that you had made this appeal to authority before. And were corrected, before. But you repeated the same foolish logical fallicy. This is the behavior of the troll.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

14th November 2007, 03:35 PM	#12
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,349	Considering that Newton did not invent calculus, what exactly is DOC's point?
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

14th November 2007, 03:38 PM	#13
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by joobz This is the behavior of the troll. Or the behavior of your average Christian.
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"

14th November 2007, 03:45 PM	#15
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Hokulele Considering that Newton did not invent calculus, what exactly is DOC's point? It's simple, 1. Newton was a respected scientist. 2. Newton believed in God. (And alchemy, not to mention unicorns.) Ergo: God exists. Errrrrrr.... yeah, I don't see the "logic" either.
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold" Last edited by Achán hiNidráne; 14th November 2007 at 03:45 PM.

14th November 2007, 04:07 PM	#16
Cosmo Radioactive Rationalist Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 1,169	Originally Posted by DOC My post was related to the thread topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation. You're funny Quote: And in answer to your non-topic related question, No, are you. Oh. You've admitted that you're not trying to learn anything. ...I kinda wasn't expecting that response. Well, I guess it clarifies a fair bit about you...

14th November 2007, 04:54 PM	#17
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Cosmo You're funny I'm not laughing.
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"

14th November 2007, 05:01 PM	#18
Cosmo Radioactive Rationalist Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 1,169	Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert I'm not laughing. Then you're making the (fatal?) mistake of taking DOC seriously.

14th November 2007, 07:23 PM	#19
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,710	Quote: He studied Hebrew scholarship and ancient and modern theologians at great length, and became convinced that Christianity had departed from the original teachings of Christ. He's not off to a blazing endorsement of the Christian enterprise.

14th November 2007, 07:41 PM	#20
articulett Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Las Vegas, NV (and the ethers of cyberspace) Posts: 15,786	Religions is more virulent-- they promise you "happily ever after" if you believe the right thing strongly enough and eternal torment if you don't. But rationality works. And the internet destroys the secrecy and mystery needed to keep the faithful from realizing that people have been making up this crap in all sorts of infinite varieties for eons. Doc is the bleating moans of a dying breed. As science finds out more... woo has fewer and few curtains to hide behind. And with spokespeople like Haggard, Bush, Falwell, Phelps, Osama, Chopra, Ratzinger,DOC, plumjam, and T'ai-- religions seems to have turned into a club few young people will want to be a part of. Stupid, old, and sexist make for very poor leaders and role models. I think everyone is ready for a permanent changing of the guard.
	Last edited by articulett; 14th November 2007 at 08:23 PM.

14th November 2007, 08:42 PM	#21
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,210	Odd - second time today that I've used the same post in two threads, but: Rational arguments don't work on religious people - if they did, there'd be no religious people. - House
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

15th November 2007, 05:21 AM	#22
ruckenheim Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 79	Originally Posted by sgf8 I love Robin Williams, is he a skeptic also? There's a lot of skepticism in his live show on broadway. Here's an example on youtube: /watch?v=HIMCH12zAYY The bit about Jerry Christ, brother of Jesus, cracks me up every time!
ruckenheim Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 79

15th November 2007, 02:40 PM	#23
PBTree Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oz Posts: 522	I'm sorry to say that religion is winning in this land. Our prime minister (who by the way is a woo) has decided to give $40million so that the catholic youth can all meet at a race course in Sydney. How ironic is that. The catholic (give me your money and let me abuse your children) church, one of the richest businesses in the world and the taxpayer has to give them all that money. Rationality has gone down the drain.
PBTree Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oz Posts: 522	__________________ . So the gods gave us Leprosy because.......?

15th November 2007, 03:39 PM	#24
ruckenheim Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 79	So, what do you suppose rationals have to do to stem this tidal wave?
ruckenheim Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 79

15th November 2007, 03:43 PM	#25
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,379	Originally Posted by ruckenheim So, what do you suppose rationals have to do to stem this tidal wave? Seppoku is an option, though perhaps not what you had in mind. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

15th November 2007, 04:57 PM	#26
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,179	Quote: Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it. Repeat for Chinese, Indian and Islamic scholars of old, and the creators of the breathtaking Great Wall of China and the pyramids of Egypt and the Aztec empire. These people were smart, no question about it. All of them probably adhered to their culture's beliefs in some way or another.
	__________________ Last edited by Safe-Keeper; 15th November 2007 at 04:57 PM.

15th November 2007, 10:44 PM	#27
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,671	Originally Posted by DOC Don't you think its important to learn that the man who many believe is the greatest scientist of all time wrote 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation. Don't you think its important to learn that he was actually a heretic?

16th November 2007, 12:24 AM	#28
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	DOC's post is an indicator of how things are changing. A person like DOC is a liar for Jesus and does not care for discussion or examination and dogmaticaly refuses to learn from their errors however many times they are pointed out to them. They have earned, in their own deluded imagination, their evangelical brownie points and to them the job is done. Repeating lies as frequently as possible would seem to be their only purpose. Luckily, more people immediately see the lies for exactly what they are. And it is thanks to people like DOC that phrases like "Lying for Jesus" gain a more common useage and become instantly understood. What people like DOC are totally unaware of is that they is not going to convince any skeptic with lies and the faithful are already lying for Jesus in their own right. They will certainly manage to swing the opinion of the fence-sitter that dislikes being lied to. I'm pretty sure the fence-sitters will not drop off the fence on DOC's side. .
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1. Last edited by H3LL; 16th November 2007 at 12:25 AM.

16th November 2007, 05:11 PM	#29
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,179	I don't think religion is dying out any time soon. I think lots of people need it, and need it too much to let go of it easily. And religious thought seems to be part of our natural instincts/urges. With these two combined, I think religion will stay for a long while yet. It'd be nice, however, if I lived to see only a single country where religion was actually completely gone. Not oppressed or hidden or whatever, but actually nonexistent. Not that the rest of the world would look at them and go 'wow, we need to try that!' - it seems the only atheistic countries getting attention, for some reason (very likely involving fundie propaganda) is the USSR and People's Republic of China.
	__________________

16th November 2007, 05:46 PM	#30
maxpower1227 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,126	I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of. I used to be a full-fledged Christian, but the more I learn, and the more I just think about things, the more I find myself doubting whether there is ANY supernatural reality. Certainly the Bible is not historically accurate, and it's likely no religious text is. While that fact alone doesn't prove the overall concept of an afterlife/etc false, it would be a blow to most believers. However, whatever I ultimately believe, I can't help but have contempt for people who actively seek to purge religion from the human experience. First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times. My feeling is this: even if I become a full-fledged atheist, if one of my loved ones who happens to be deeply religious is on their death and the only thing comforting them is the thought of getting to see their deceased loved ones again - if some jack*** comes in as they lay dying and says "terribly sorry, but there is no afterlife, and you're just going to rot in the ground. Look, I have proof...", they'd probably be missing a few teeth. There is a place in this world for both religion and rationality, as long as a balance is maintained. Sometimes it's best to consider what's best for the masses, rather than what's correct. (Side note: Are we really counting Robin Williams as a credible skeptic? What exactly makes him qualified to deal with any scientific or philosophical topics? Is it all the drugs he's taken? This seems kinda similar to touting Rosie or Charlie Sheen as a 9/11 skeptic)
	__________________ Warning. If you don't want to see your treasured "evidence" completely pwned in public, don't show it to the posters at JREF. - Rolfe Last edited by maxpower1227; 16th November 2007 at 06:02 PM.

18th November 2007, 02:14 AM	#31
Autolite Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,529	Originally Posted by maxpower1227 First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times. This is pretty much the way I see it also. Religion, and all paranormal belief for that matter, is here to stay. It's all BS of course, but it's an integral part of our existence. I remember reading something in the Skeptics Dictionary that illustrated the point quite clearly. Basically it asserted than most humans need irrational belief in their live simply to make life tolerable ...

18th November 2007, 02:39 AM	#32
Apology Reader's of the Boden Codex Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,668	There's still more of them than there are of us.

18th November 2007, 03:00 AM	#33
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by maxpower1227 I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of.............. Originally Posted by Autolite This is pretty much the way I see it also. Religion, and all paranormal belief for that matter, is here to stay. It's all BS of course, but it's an integral part of our existence. I remember reading something in the Skeptics Dictionary that illustrated the point quite clearly. Basically it asserted than most humans need irrational belief in their live simply to make life tolerable ... That would be all well and good if it was not harmful as well. It is and should be challenged. Also, if some religions were not openly hostile to scientific advance and in some cases are, have and will kill to further their cause, it should be challenged. It is fair to say that some religions were hostile first. I don't accept that it's "here to stay". Children are born atheist and to suggest that it is difficult or impossible to overcome built-in instincts is obviously not so by looking out of the window. It could be argued that the desire to enslave others is "part of our existence". happily, slavery has mostly gone as an acceptable institution. Originally Posted by maxpower1227 (Side note: Are we really counting Robin Williams as a credible skeptic? What exactly makes him qualified to deal with any scientific or philosophical topics? This is typical of the use of argument from authority, often seen from the religious and also typical of the woolly/fallacious thinking that is encouraged within religious dogma as many religions desire to be the only 'authoritative' source. I'm in no position to comment on Robin Williams as a sceptic, however, his scepticism is judged by what is presented. Drug use, what colour hair he has, qualifications or how famous he is is irrelevant. If his, or anybody's arguments are sound...they are of value. When his arguments show little or no scepticism, it will be self evident. .
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

18th November 2007, 03:38 AM	#34
Gregoire Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 534	Originally Posted by H3LL I don't accept that it's "here to stay". Children are born atheist and to suggest that it is difficult or impossible to overcome built-in instincts is obviously not so by looking out of the window. It could be argued that the desire to enslave others is "part of our existence". happily, slavery has mostly gone as an acceptable institution. A child certainly has to be taught about a god to end up believing in a god, but magical thinking and over reading patterns seems to be the natural state of childhood. Growing up and learning to think rationally, while bringing many obvious advantages, does seem to take a bit of work. So I while I would agree that organized religion is certainly on the decline, isn't it just being replaced by other superstitions?
	__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..” Voltaire "The crows seem to be calling my name", thought Caw.

18th November 2007, 03:56 AM	#35
Gregoire Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 534	Originally Posted by maxpower1227 I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of. I used to be a full-fledged Christian, but the more I learn, and the more I just think about things, the more I find myself doubting whether there is ANY supernatural reality. Certainly the Bible is not historically accurate, and it's likely no religious text is. While that fact alone doesn't prove the overall concept of an afterlife/etc false, it would be a blow to most believers. However, whatever I ultimately believe, I can't help but have contempt for people who actively seek to purge religion from the human experience. First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times. My feeling is this: even if I become a full-fledged atheist, if one of my loved ones who happens to be deeply religious is on their death and the only thing comforting them is the thought of getting to see their deceased loved ones again - if some jack*** comes in as they lay dying and says "terribly sorry, but there is no afterlife, and you're just going to rot in the ground. Look, I have proof...", they'd probably be missing a few teeth. There is a place in this world for both religion and rationality, as long as a balance is maintained. Sometimes it's best to consider what's best for the masses, rather than what's correct. If someone believes in a religion and does not try to push it on others, I have no quarrel with them. Similarly, if a baseball player had to wear his "lucky shirt" whenever he played, again I would not argue with him unless asked by him to give an opinion. But I would use both examples as a barometer of the state of rationality and critical thinking in our society. And that would be the way, in my opinion, to come up with an answer to the OP. I agree that arguing about religion is not a very fruitful enterprise. And in the example you give, I would even call it malicious. But I do think it is worth it to teach critical thinking to others in a neutral setting in other contexts and let them ultimately figure it out for themselves.
	__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..” Voltaire "The crows seem to be calling my name", thought Caw. Last edited by Gregoire; 18th November 2007 at 04:00 AM.

18th November 2007, 04:55 AM	#36
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,043	Originally Posted by DOC Who's winning? Religion or rationality? Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614 On the other hand Martin Luther said: "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. " and "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God. " He didn't think that reason and religion were compatible, did he?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22