Could religion ever die?

5uspect

PDN wrote: »

The point is that I was refuting an invalid argument and as a result got hit with a false accusation.

Its Monday, I think we're all a little slow and possibly confused.:o

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The point is that I was refuting an invalid argument and as a result got hit with a false accusation.

I think you are all getting a bit muddled.

Robin's original point was that since the odds of picking the correct religion are far far less likely than picking the wrong religion, it makes much more sense to not pick any religion (this I assume worked on the assumption that picking the wrong religion was worse than not picking one at all)

PDN, after stating that to him the correct religion has already been determined, moved on to discussing the odds that someone would be born into this correct religion, (the correct religion being Christianity obviously). So a child born tomorrow has a 1 in 3 chance of being born into a Christian family and thus the correct religion

The problem seems to be that PDN moved on to discussing this without making that fact clear to everyone else, who are all still discussing Robins original point about the odds of picking the correct religion.

Which is why you have people explaining to PDN that there is not a 1 in 3 chance that someone will pick the correct religion, the odds of that happening are far far greater, when in fact PDN wasn't stating that, he was stating that Christianity is already the correct religion and the odds of someone being born into that religion are 1 in 3

See this is what happens when people don't take the time to properly read other people's posts

robindch

PDN wrote:

Have you got a mental block here or are you deliberately misrepresenting me?

I'll assume that you're tired from all your recent travelling -- no offence taken!

PDN wrote:

If I, in a fit of creativity, were to suggest ten new theories (eg that the earth was laid as an egg by a gigantic heavenly lizard etc), would the existence of these new theories thereby diminish the odds of every other theory being correct?

No, of course not. But that wasn't your original point, as Wicknight mentioned.

If a random believer confines him/herself to choosing an existing faith-based proposition then yes, your ten extra stories do diminish the chances of a random believer choosing the "right" one.

The chances of the same proposition being the right one are independent of the existence of other faith-based propositions. One man's castle in the sky will have as solid a foundation as the next man's.

PDN wrote:

You make an unwarranted assumption that all religious viewpoints are equally likely to be true

If all religious viewpoints are supported by belief -- aka "faith" -- only (see Ephesians 2:8-9, faith alone is required), then my assumption is valid.

But if you want to start considering evidence, however you want to define that in a faith-only based context, then the argument is, of course, different. Just as it's different if we have to start taking into account all the religions which don't exist, and the possibility that an unknown religion, of the infinite number available, happens to be the one true, but unknown, one.

And when we do that, the chances of a random human picking the right religion reduce to zero immediately.

.

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

[...PDN...] he was stating that Christianity is already the correct religion and the odds of someone being born into that religion are 1 in 3

Yes, that's no doubt the (completely correct) point he was trying to make initially, but that's not what he wrote

Zombrex

Well in fairness to him he wrote it here -

PDN wrote: »

Since I believe Christianity to be the correct one then it would appear, from the number of Christian adherents and the world's population, that the chances of someone believing the right one are about one in three and improving every day.

When he says the chances of believing the right one he doesn't mean the chances that Christianity is right, but rather that someone will be a Christian. Christanity is assumed to be right from the get go.

this logic was continued when answering you with this piece

PDN wrote: »

You are on a journey to Dublin and you reach a crossroads. Three of the possible routes are dirt tracks with handwritten signs saying "This way to Dublin". The fourth choice is a proper road with a proper signpost indicating that it leads to Dublin. Since there is only a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right road much better to reject them all and sit on your backside at the crossroads for the rest of your life, no?

All PDN's future posts are working under the axom that Christianity is the correct religion.

The idea that it might not be seems to not even feature. This is the point that he seems to have failed to realise, that all the rest of you didn't just go along with this axom of faith since the rest of you didn't start of from this point.

The confusion lies it seems from PDN not making it clear enough (or to flip that around, the rest of us not reading his post clearly enough) that he has moved on from the issue of whether or not Christianity is correct, to the position it is correct now what are the odds that someone is a Christian

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

Well in fairness to him he wrote it here

Yes, I've reread that several times, but it still doesn't mean what PDN says it means. Perhaps it would have been clearer if he'd written:

If christianity is right, then the chances of someone believing the right one are about one in three

And that's unarguably true.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I've reread that several times, but it still doesn't mean what PDN says it means. Perhaps it would have been clearer if he'd written:

If christianity is right, then the chances of someone believing the right one are about one in three

And that's unarguably true.

Still, it's hardly unreasonable for a committed Christian to assume Christianity it correct...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I've reread that several times, but it still doesn't mean what PDN says it means. Perhaps it would have been clearer if he'd written:And that's unarguably true.

oh don't get me wrong, I think it was unclear as well. Its just I believe it was genuine, if unclear.

What PDN is saying is Christianity is right, therefore the chances of someone believing the right religion are about one in three

Of course on an atheist forum, particularly when this wasn't the original discussion and in fact it goes counter to your original point, it seems rather foolish to put that axiom forward and assume everyone gets you and then work on from there.

Schuhart

At the risk of recreating confusion after it was resolved, is there not still a point that emerges? It’s that old one that what religion you adhere to is likely to be determined simply by birth. I expect we’ve all come across this point before – an Irish person is unlikely to have an exposure to the Hindu faith that would cause to convert, a Saudi is unlikely to have an objective exposure to Christianity and so on ad nauseam.

Hence, milking the point unnecessarily for this company, the global possibility of a person adhering to Christianity might be one in three. But most of the other two thirds have an unequal opportunity of seeing the truth in its propositions. So its less about Robinch’s point that the probability of picking the right religion is low and more that the chances of someone seeing beyond whatever claims are made for the home town faith are low. So we have to figure either that God doesn’t care too much about the two thirds or (having obviously conceded that the divine will is happy to see most people damned) our home town faith is wrong and one of the others will be saved while we burn.

easyontheeye

TheThing! wrote: »

Being an atheist and a skeptic, I am constantly frustrated by the wall of unbreakable belief that I am faced with in day to day life. I often end up wondering if there will ever be a day when the religious are in the minority and atheism and critical thinking prevail. Although I would like to think that it could happen some day in the distant future, I really dont think that it ever really could. Any opinions???

why do you care? why does it bother you so much that people have faith?

Zombrex

easyontheeye wrote: »

why do you care? why does it bother you so much that people have faith?

Jez, where have you been?

Taters

Perhaps, when global warming takes us out (whenever that will be) then yes... Seeing as when that happens everyone will finally figure out that there is no such thing as hell/heaven/magic-unicorn-pony-land-of-amazing-floating-toothbrushes.

sink

It is an impossible question to answer. Firstly the question is too broad as religion is simply a common set of beliefs held by a group of people, not necessarily theism. Therefore what you actually asked is "will people will ever stop holding common beliefs", which I dare say will only happen when mankind is extinct due to our social nature.

The question you probably meant to ask is will theism ever die? Which is impossible to answer as the existence/non-existence of deities is yet to be proven and may never be proven.

I am a non-theist as opposed to an atheist or an agnostic as I find belief either way to be a leap of faith. All I know is that I do not know.

Dades

sink wrote: »

I am a non-theist as opposed to an atheist or an agnostic as I find belief either way to be a leap of faith. All I know is that I do not know.

Well that makes you an agnostic in my book!
And I suspect if pushed you'd probably say you don't believe in religious gods - but for some reason think it's wrong to actually have a 'belief'.

EDIT:

Just other thread. Indeed!