Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins strips away religion's dead wood
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
I'm not saying that it's an exact figure but surely you can give some kind of an estimate?
I don't find much meaning in giving percentages. You could be very right at 95%, but you also could be very wrong in actuality. I find it best to express it in verbal terms. I would say that a majority do come to faith through their parents but there are also a lot of other opportunities by which one can come to faith. If you don't mind I think it's best to leave it on that understanding
Btw, in many cases joining because of friends has pretty much the same motivation as joining because of parents. It's often (note not always) a form of peer pressure
I don't think that peer pressure really applies in say a friend asking you to go to church or explaining to you about Jesus Christ and what He did. It's very possible to say no, and a lot of people (probably the vast majority) of those who hear will say no.
In the interest of carrying on the discussion somewhat on topic
What dead wood do you think Christians are likely to take away from Christianity in the next few years?
I'll wait till a sizeable amount of people respond to the question before replying myself on this one 0 -
I'd really rather not because that understanding allows you to keep asserting that a sizeable number of people come to religion of their own volition but I don't believe that to be the case and the statistics support my position. Even you, though you wrestled with it for a while, settled on the religion of your parents and peers. I'd say that's very common tbh, most people, if not all, will wrestle with it at some point unless religion makes no difference in their lives and they're actually christian in name onlyI don't find much meaning in giving percentages. You could be very right at 95%, but you also could be very wrong in actuality. I find it best to express it in verbal terms. I would say that a majority do come to faith through their parents but there are also a lot of other opportunities by which one can come to faith. If you don't mind I think it's best to leave it on that understanding
Can you provide any support for your assertion that a sizeable number of people choose a religion different to that of their parents and peers?
It's possible to say no to smoking and drinking and drugs too but many people still don't. People want to be accepted by their peers and so there is always pressure to conform. Having the option to say no doesn't change thatI don't think that peer pressure really applies in say a friend asking you to go to church or explaining to you about Jesus Christ and what He did. It's very possible to say no, and a lot of people (probably the vast majority) of those who hear will say no.In the interest of carrying on the discussion somewhat on topic
What dead wood do you think Christians are likely to take away from Christianity in the next few years?
I think you're asking the wrong people tbh. I know that in another thread you listed a load of reasons why people would become atheists and they included things like the hypocrisy of the church and other things about the inner workings that we might not agree with but that actually has very little to do with atheism
Most atheists are atheists because there is no evidence of god, simple as that. Whether christians are hypocritical or not does not change the probability of the existence or non existence of god. The only real answer you're likely to get here is "provide more evidence" but that's not going to happen because we've already seen all the evidence that exists0 -
Advertisement
-
Can you provide any support for your assertion that a sizeable number of people choose a religion different to that of their parents and peers?
Of course this is of questionable accuracy, but if we take the figures cited on Wikipedia for this (before anyone moans, this is a light discussion and I'm not going to research the world and beyond, if I can be proved wrong, I will accept it and concede my point).
We are talking about a net gain of 23,000 a day in the developing world all formerly non-Christians, a net decline of 7600 in the Western world. Other figures say that roughly 6,000 former Muslims a day convert to Christianity but this is most likely included in the figure for the developing world?
If we do the maths:
23000 - 7600 = 15400
15400 * 365 = 5621000
So we are nearly talking about 6 million people a year.
If I want to go on about individuals, Ravi Zacharias converted from Hinduism to Christianity after seeing a vision of Jesus, and of course we have Masab Youcef who was an ex-Muslim who rejected Islam in jail and was converted to Christianity by a foreign tourist in Jerusalem after being released from the Megido prison. He now has asylum in the USA. No doubt I could also find many more. Masab Youcef is particularly interesting because he had to leave his family and all that he had to have new life because of His faith. It wasn't a rash decision by any means.It's possible to say no to smoking and drinking and drugs too but many people still don't. People want to be accepted by their peers and so there is always pressure to conform. Having the option to say no doesn't change that
Without emphasising too much that the analogy isn't a good one
I don't think that this really occurs all that much in any context that I have seen. Infact if I asked that question to anyone I would expect people to say no. As for a pressure to conform, I don't know what pressure I could possibly put on anyone to convert to Christianity. If I may quote Muhammad of Islam "there is no compulsion in religion".I think you're asking the wrong people tbh. I know that in another thread you listed a load of reasons why people would become atheists and they included things like the hypocrisy of the church and other things about the inner workings that we might not agree with but that actually has very little to do with atheism
Fair enough. It probably is the wrong place to ask it but it is on the right track of the thread. I think we can agree with that much?Most atheists are atheists because there is no evidence of god, simple as that. Whether christians are hypocritical or not does not change the probability of the existence or non existence of god. The only real answer you're likely to get here is "provide more evidence" but that's not going to happen because we've already seen all the evidence that exists
I'm not sure if I agree with that all that much. I think many atheists have intellectual difficulties with Christianity, but I think there are many other reasons that aren't as vocalised such as the treatment of religion on people in the past, and how morals are incompatible with peoples lifestyles.
I was talking to a friend of mine about Christianity before in a calm manner. He is an agnostic, and his dad is a Muslim, and his mum is a Catholic. He said to me that he felt that he would have an identity crisis if he ever adopted Christianity. I have no reason to believe that there are other reasons apart from the intellectual and the nitty gritty why people don't believe. It might be the case that this is why you believe, but I am not sure if many atheists and agnostics hold purely intellectual difficulties or even that a majority do.
To keep in on topic, there is nothing that you can think that will change in Christianity if we are to agree with the article that Dawkins is great at carpenting religions he has no interest in?
0 -
Firstly, that counts as "and peers" and secondly I don't really care about Africa and third world countries in general because there are other factors involved such as missionaries. It's in their interests to be christians because the christians are the ones with the money. These people did not go through a process of wrestling with themselves and eventually embracing the one true religion, it's the done thing at the moment. They're conforming just like most peopleOf course this is of questionable accuracy, but if we take the figures cited on Wikipedia for this (before anyone moans, this is a light discussion and I'm not going to research the world and beyond, if I can be proved wrong, I will accept it and concede my point).
We are talking about a net gain of 23,000 a day in the developing world all formerly non-Christians, a net decline of 7600 in the Western world. Other figures say that roughly 6,000 former Muslims a day convert to Christianity but this is most likely included in the figure for the developing world?
If we do the maths:
23000 - 7600 = 15400
15400 * 365 = 5621000
So we are nearly talking about 6 million people a year.
No I don't, I know there are some isolated examples. I'm looking for a statistically significant number of people who did what you did, ie rejected the religion of their parents but unlike you, did not go back to it. And who didn't do it for selfish or conformist reasonsIf I want to go on about individuals, Ravi Zacharias converted from Hinduism to Christianity after seeing a vision of Jesus, and of course we have Masab Youcef who was an ex-Muslim who rejected Islam in jail and was converted to Christianity by a foreign tourist in Jerusalem after being released from the Megido prison. He now has asylum in the USA. No doubt I could also find many more. Masab Youcef is particularly interesting because he had to leave his family and all that he had to have new life because of His faith. It wasn't a rash decision by any means.
There was a guard in Guantanemo bay who converted to Islam based on listening to the prisoners. That's so rare it made the news!Without emphasising too much that the analogy isn't a good one
I don't think that this really occurs all that much in any context that I have seen. Infact if I asked that question to anyone I would expect people to say no. As for a pressure to conform, I don't know what pressure I could possibly put on anyone to convert to Christianity. If I may quote Muhammad of Islam "there is no compulsion in religion".
Of course no one would say they're a christian because of pressure to conform.
What pressure do you think could be put on someone to smoke? You say it's not a good analogy but I don't see how. If people can be convinced to do something that has been proven to be lethal to fit in what makes you think it's impossible to pressure them into accepting your version of eternal life?
There is a lot of morality in the bible that I disagree with but that has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it comes from God. You're confusing rejecting religion with not believing in it. I also disagree with George Bush but that's very different to saying he doesn't existI'm not sure if I agree with that all that much. I think many atheists have intellectual difficulties with Christianity, but I think there are many other reasons that aren't as vocalised such as the treatment of religion on people in the past, and how morals are incompatible with peoples lifestyles.
To be honest, the thing that is required for christianity to make a come back is a war or a famine or something that makes people afraid and desperate. Desperate people need something like religion to rely on but affluent, comfortable people not so muchTo keep in on topic, there is nothing that you can think that will change in Christianity if we are to agree with the article that Dawkins is great at0 -
Firstly, that counts as "and peers" and secondly I don't really care about Africa and third world countries in general because there are other factors involved such as missionaries. It's in their interests to be christians because the christians are the ones with the money. These people did not go through a process of wrestling with themselves and eventually embracing the one true religion, it's the done thing at the moment. They're conforming just like most people
Right, but you do realise this is the point? I also think you are oversimplifying missionary activity if you are saying that it is about money. The point was you said that followers don't come from other sources apart from parents teaching them really. You've just answered your own question essentially here. Missionaries do have quite a large impact. To gain a fuller idea of what we are talking about we have to consider all the possibilities instead of just assuming "ah well it was the parents". Would you agree with me?No I don't, I know there are some isolated examples. I'm looking for people who did what you did, ie rejected the religion of their parents but unlike you, did not go back to it. And who didn't do it for selfish or conformist reasons
When you look around the world things like this are more prevalent than you think.Of course no one would say they're a christian because of pressure to conform.
Fair enough.What pressure do you think could be put on someone to smoke? You say it's not a good analogy but I don't see how. If people can be convinced to do something that has been proven to be lethal what makes you think it's impossible to pressure them into accepting your version of eternal life?
I don't consider it a good analogy due to the health damage from smoking(N.B Not willing to get into a discussion about the so called "damage" involved with religion)
I don't wish to pressure anyone to religion at all. People might be manipulative in religion and I think this isn't what Christianity is about. I think people having free choice and thought are better than people who are fearmongered into joining. So yes, I concede in part to you.There is a lot of morality in the bible that I disagree with but that has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it comes from God. You're confusing rejecting religion with not believing in it. I also disagree with George Bush but that's very different to saying he doesn't exist
Fair point.To be honest, the thing that is required for christianity to make a come back is a war or a famine or something that makes people afraid and desperate. Desperate people need something like religion to rely on but affluent, comfortable people not so much
This hasn't been the case historically. I don't understand why such an act would be necessary especially given the circumstances of myself and others although having education have seen Christianity as reasonable. I guess I'm just insane 0 -
No I wouldn't. You can't use one rule to cover the whole world and every person who converts. I'm only interested in people who made an intellectual, independent, individual decision to switch religions such as Ravi Zacharias but on a much wider scale and the rise of Christianity in Africa is not an example of that. People who switched because the people with the money were telling them to switch or because it's the current social norm actually prove my point, not yours. You can see the difference here yes?Right, but you do realise this is the point? I also think you are oversimplifying missionary activity if you are saying that it is about money. The point was you said that followers don't come from other sources apart from parents teaching them really. You've just answered your own question essentially here. Missionaries do have quite a large impact. To gain a fuller idea of what we are talking about we have to consider all the possibilities instead of just assuming "ah well it was the parents". Would you agree with me?
such as.......When you look around the world things like this are more prevalent than you think.
Baring in mind I want statistics and not a few isolated examples
I'm sorry Jakkass but that that doesn't make any sense. How is it due to the health damage from smoking?I don't consider it a good analogy due to the health damage from smoking(N.B Not willing to get into a discussion about the so called "damage" involved with religion)
Smoking damages your health and everyone knows this. And yet people can still be convinced to do it to fit in. So why would it be more difficult to pressure someone into something something that is apparently not damaging at all and is supposed to be the greatest thing in the universe? Do you think it's just that you don't see it as pressuring because you think you're just telling the truth?
It's not even that people are deliberately being manipulative or vindictive. They really believe what they're saying when they're convincing people. It's human nature to conform to social norms
yay \o/Fair point.
Ah but my whole point is that people such as yourself are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people just go with the flowThis hasn't been the case historically. I don't understand why such an act would be necessary especially given the circumstances of myself and others although having education have seen Christianity as reasonable. I guess I'm just insane0 -
No I wouldn't. You can't use one rule to cover the whole world and every person who converts. I'm only interested in people who made an intellectual, independent, individual decision to switch religions such as Ravi Zacharias but on a much wider scale and the rise of Christianity in Africa is not an example of that. People who switched because the people with the money were telling them to switch or because it's the current social norm actually prove my point, not yours. You can see the difference here yes?
Yes of course there are other factors. The point is that we cannot always assume about peoples religious identities and then coming from their parents. That's really what I wanted to get across. I think both you and I would note that that point has been made adequately by now.such as.......
Baring in mind I want statistics and not a few isolated examples
I'm just saying that it is the case for quite a lot of people.I'm sorry Jakkass but that that doesn't make any sense. How is it due to the health damage from smoking?
I don't mean that they are convinced by this. I mean that by the smoking example you are implying that religion is harmful to peoples health. Apologies, that was my fault for lack of clarity.Smoking damages your health and everyone knows this. And yet people can still be convinced to do it to fit in. So why would it be more difficult to pressure someone into something something that is apparently not damaging at all and is supposed to be the greatest thing in the universe? Do you think it's just that you don't see it as pressuring because you think you're just telling the truth?
Yes, but I don't think the two circumstances are like with like. I don't think people join Christianity because it's "cool" or to fit in generally. I'm struggling to get the reference to pressure really in this whole discussion we are having. Ultimately people will decide to believe in whatever they decide to believe in even if people are coerced to do so. You've surely heard of the idea of crypto-Judaism by now? If not look it up.
By pressuring I would assume that there would be some kind of intimidation involved. I don't think I've intimidated anyone to accept it as truth through my speaking to them. I don't think it's much relevant to what we are discussing anyway. We've moved on from how people generally find faith to tactics used by those advocating it.It's not even that people are deliberately being manipulative or vindictive. They really believe what they're saying when they're convincing people. It's human nature to conform to social norms
Would you consider the same if I said that this was also true for secular movements?
Anyhow, people are deliberately manipulative and vindictive in spreading religion, that was the point I was making.Ah but my whole point is that people such as yourself are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people just go with the flow
When you take every attribute about me and compile it together, it's very unlikely you will find someone like me. That's the same for everyone I think
Carrying on. If you mean in religiosity, perhaps there isn't a majority. Then again Jesus said that those who would be on His path would be in a minority so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 30406
I don't think that there isn't any evidence. That would be you claiming an absolute again. Through the sharing of testimonies on a daily basis Christians can show how Jesus has worked in their lives. Again it may be evidence by indication but none the less it is an account of how Christianity has shaped peoples lives.
In fairness, "evidence by indication" is not evidence at all. It is evidence that chrisianity has shaped these people's lives,fair enough, but not evidence that anything beyond that has happened. My love for comic books and science fiction has shaped my life to an extent and given me great joy, but (no matter how i want it to be the case) this does not mean nor imply yoda or batman are real
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Again, I don't think another discussion about evidence is going to help either of us very much. We've been through evidence several times, and I know there is an insistence to keep going down that alley. I'd far prefer to keep on the actual topic.
The problem, Jakkass, is that you're in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum and we're pretty much all about evidence 0 -
To get back to the topic though, the article saysDawkins and his ilk may have their sights trained on eliminating religion, but what they are actually doing is exposing its dead wood, the anachronisms that have been protected from critical thinking, and that needed cutting away.
So basically it's saying that Dawkins is pointing out all the flaws in the arguments used for God so the religious are going to some up with new and better arguments in response, a sort of argumentative evolution if you will
Personally I don't see it happening. I think that if there were better arguments for God's existence they would have been thought of at some point in the last 2000 years. It's been nothing but logical fallacies and circular reasoning up until today and I don't see that changing any time soon.
What religion needs to do to convince people intellectually is demonstrate that what they're saying is true experimentally but they can't do that because [insert excuse here]
And in my opinion the main reason they'll never be able to come up with an airtight argument for God's existence is quite simply that he doesn't exist0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
We areWho is saying that anyone has to "lower their standards" to adopt a faith.
That is the argument, and it is, I feel at least, backed up some what by decline in religious faith in areas of high education, particularly science education.
Though personally I wouldn't call it a lowering of standards, more a raising of standards, standards that are difficult for someone to lower once they have been raised.I don't think religion or atheism is about lowering anyones standards it's about seeking the truth at the end of the day. This is what both parties claim anyway.
Yes but those exposed to things like the philosophy of science tend to have higher standards of what they are willing to accept as true.You are assuming also that the "modern Western world" will universally hold the opinion that you hold. Which again is nonsense.
Not universally, but in a greater and greater majority.0
Advertisement