A rise in anti-religious sentiment on the forums?

[MissAlice]

Anti-religious sentiment is proportional to preachy, fundamentalism.

I don't think we see any more religious bashing than we do anti-religious. They compliment each-other. I mean i've been trying to explain for 100 pages which Noah's story cannot be literal. Its driven me ****** insane.

I definitely agree which is why I'm curious as to why there is a need to attack. For me, science has no wrong or right answeres only what is found through pragmatic approach. I could see why one would get angry though if someone of faith uses god as the excuse for why it's ok to oppress women or a people of faith. Even as a child when I was old enough to read, I never understood why a loving god would send people into hell for not being part of a particular religious faith. So I can see why as well as other factors regarding some of the anger atheists have toward people of a religious faith.

However I wouldn't be so quick to clump all anti-religious people into a sect of religious hating bigots lol. Some atheists or people with lack of faith are argumentative and some aren't when it comes to debates with retorts using as insult. I've seen it go both ways and have also seen a good amount of people of faith also use such strawman arguments. What boggles me however is how someone with a conservatively religious point of view could use language in such a way that it would contradict their version of god.

 

[Heneni]

Yeah you should only watch 'the left behind ' series with the sound off, but what kind of music?
YouTube - Q Lazarus - Goodbye Horses

LOL...that might do...or ill opt for pink floyd's brick in the wall...slightly adapted....Ya know...we dont need no education....we dont need no thought control...PREACHER leave them kids alone....

Or Michael Jackson's TRILLER....

Or LOVE HURTS first recorded by the Everly Brothers.

Or maybe just before I get the wine....Madonna and Timberlakes '4 seconds to save the world'.

Heneni

 

[darkendless]

I definitely agree which is why I'm curious as to why there is a need to attack. For me, science has no wrong or right answeres only what is found through pragmatic approach. I could see why one would get angry though if someone of faith uses god as the excuse for why it's ok to oppress women or a people of faith. Even as a child when I was old enough to read, I never understood why a loving god would send people into hell for not being part of a particular religious faith. So I can see why as well as other factors regarding some of the anger atheists have toward people of a religious faith.

I used such an example because if you want to take the story literally, there are a few controversial points to be made. Science can disprove a global flood and the existance of some massive wooden ship that somehow didn't break under stress. But hey, what do i know right, science has nothing on God who can make things do what he wants.

 

[MoonWater]

Not to dispute your point, I think its an important one, but the quote actually comes from a situation with St. Augustine, so it would be catholic in origin.

Which quote? i think I mentioned two or three.

To more fully address several of the points you've made, I'm new, so I couldn't comment on the ebb and flow on conversation, however, I spent a great deal of time reading the old posts before I began posting my own, out of respect for those here, and to understand the rules and boundries. I don't think that there is a specific theist departure, it might be of concern that several of the representation from the carpenter in particular (no offense intended to anyone) are more on an emotional basis than one of rational debate or intellectual exchange, which is a bit disappointing, one loves a good debate. As far as the president, and the christian constituancy, we all have to be concerned about what the president believes, he can indeed make life difficult, but I also agree that in the long run, in the big picture when we look back at the path which was this life, he will not be a big part of that...I remember not so long ago a leader who scared the hell out of me, one who openly said not only that he spoke to god, but that god spoke back, he made horrific changes that will be long reaching, and have done much harm. But in twenty years, if I am able, I doubt I will remember a single quote from the man....I'll remember the day the towers fell, but not the man who sat motionless and speechless in response. I think history is horrific today, in a thousand years, it's a footnote.

As a final thought on that footnote, your comment concerning not following their own book, you are referring to a group (specific sects responsible for their own histories, no one need think I'm attacking the belief system itself, only what was done in it's name) that was openly responsible for three crusades, an inqusition, not to even mention what could be said about feminist rights, racial rights, human rights for that matter, in the long history of that particular book....

Again, just my thoughts.

S3V3N

I don't think a book should be held responsible for how a few corrupt leaders interpret it. I believe this metaphor was used before by someone else here but it bears repeating. To blame the bible for those aspects of human history is like saying people don't kill people, guns kill people. I've always found it odd how in most every other instance it is the person who is held responsible for any crimes committed not the tools used in the committing of those crimes. But the instant religion is brought into the picture there are numerous people who will shift the blame from the individuals responsible to the religion itself, not realizing that religion is also a tool. A tool only has power and use when used by people and even a tool made with the best of intentions can be used to hurt others. It all depends on the tool. You also have to consider the fact that those issues you mentioned with women's rights, race rights, human rights in general; were around long before the bible and Christianity came about. Indeed the very notion of "human rights" is relatively young, only a couple hundred years old. The bible is a product of its time so naturally some of it will seem outdated, odd, and just plain atrocious by today's standards. But the important thing to remember and what far too many religious and non-religious people forget all too often is that the bible is meant as mythology and is also a collection of books, a small sampling of jewish writings. as such it is incomplete and it is also not meant to be taken literally. If it were I imagine the authors would take greater care with consistency.

 

[gnomon]

Tools can be questioned.

It's just that Christianity is such a broad category and frankly an obviously malleable tool that criticism of it is often off the mark.

However, de facto criticism of religious belief is not.

Being able to distinguish between the two is a necessity. I will not bash Christianity. It doesn't make any sense to do so. The only defining aspect of Christianity are two things:1) Belief in Jesus Christ as savior and 2)expounding on that with others. However, if someone starts to mention certain forms of Pentecostalism practiced in Africa I will attack the belief itself.

But the important thing to remember and what far too many religious and non-religious people forget all too often is that the bible is meant as mythology and is also a collection of books, a small sampling of jewish writings.

I disagree. The Bible itself are those books canonized by the Catholic Church. It was never intended as mythology. The works of the New Testament were never intended as mythology by those who lay claim to them. While certain aspect of Jewish religious literature may indeed by considered a mythology by Jewish believers I seriously doubt that the Tanakh is considered a mythological work in any sense we consider cultural works mythology.

 

[s3v3n]

I just spent 45 minutes writing out what i felt was a well considered, rational if controversial response to each of your points Moon. Probably my best post...the phone rang and my 2 year old son managed to close out my browser in the meantime, which may be either a kharmic indicator or at least an ego warning...

I'll try again this evening...

S3V3N

 

[ellenjanuary]

In my view, some religious people tend to let a narrow doctrine close their minds. Closed minds are bad.
(My other view is that some religious people need to be bashed... oops. I'll try to keep that fella reigned in.)

Now, then... if I lived in Louisiana, I'd have to leave now to cull the family tree. I do not listen to the news, read the news, think about the news... and I have an actual fear of what would happen if I ran into this detrimental species in the street... ID is not science, Creationism is not science; and if I get a little ignorant here; please forgive me in advance... but we're probably saving a life or two letting crazy ol' ellen run his dang fool neck here... that's a good thing, right? :yes:

 

[Yerda]

But hey, what do i know right, science has nothing on God who can make things do what he wants.

Indeed. It is impossible to contradict the claim that a being exists who can do anything. This property, however, is not a strength but a weakness of the position. If it's not falsifiable, it's not even wrong. It's meaningless.

 

[JMorris]

ive found that debating aspects of religion to be rather pointless. the theists your talking/debating with dont know anything more about god (whither he exists, or any aspect of him if he indeed does) anymore than i or anyone else. so whats the point exactly? whoever your talking to, its always what they believe, and belief isnt knowledge. so what are we debating about? it always boils down to the person's personality, and their personal concept of god. im far more interested in debating and talking about religion's impact on society. political issues and such

 

[linwood]

im far more interested in debating and talking about religion's impact on society. political issues and such

But some of us don`t want to talk about that stuff JMorris.

We`re just hoping it`ll go away if we don`t mention it.

Shhh..

:tigger:

 

[Humanistheart]

Given that several religions have been completley debunked now, I'm wondering if we can petition to have a new category added. Debunked religions: Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism... hmm, but they're all already under abrahamic religions, perhaps we can just relable that entire category.

 

[MSizer]

I just spent 45 minutes writing out what i felt was a well considered, rational if controversial response to each of your points Moon. Probably my best post...the phone rang and my 2 year old son managed to close out my browser in the meantime, which may be either a kharmic indicator or at least an ego warning...

I'll try again this evening...

S3V3N

Wow, you'll laugh about it someday, but hold your breath for now! 8^)

 

[Apex]

Given that several religions have been completley debunked now, I'm wondering if we can petition to have a new category added. Debunked religions: Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism... hmm, but they're all already under abrahamic religions, perhaps we can just relable that entire category.

Thank you for proving the OP true.

 

[MissAlice]

One or a few people doesn't necessarily represent a majority or minority as a whole.

And anyway, don't religions make the same argument over eachother?:sarcastic

 

[Quagmire]

Given that several religions have been completley debunked now, I'm wondering if we can petition to have a new category added. Debunked religions: Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism... hmm, but they're all already under abrahamic religions, perhaps we can just relable that entire category.

When did this happen?

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

People are increasingly being pushed in the direction of secularism. secularism is a one of the signs of the end of time, along with many others that have also manifested in these times.

 

[Quagmire]

People are increasingly being pushed in the direction of secularism. secularism is a one of the signs of the end of time, along with many others that have also manifested in these times.

How "pushed"?

I would say it's more reasonable to point out that people have access to more reliable information now than ever before.

 

[Quagmire]

How "pushed"?

Funny, seemed like a simple question to me.

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

How "pushed"?

I would say it's more reasonable to point out that people have access to more reliable information now than ever before.

TV and movies, general principals in society are the tools used to push people or mould ideas into the population. secularism is preached daily on all mediums, such as ; magazines, tv, films, radio etc..

 

[Morse]

TV and movies, general principals in society are the tools used to push people or mould ideas into the population. secularism is preached daily on all mediums, such as ; magazines, tv, films, radio etc..

Saying something is true doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Even anecdotal evidence is superior to what you have to say, and I'm assuming that is all you could supply us with. Above anecdotal evidence would be statistical evidence, if you could provide us with some widespread statistics and an objective interpretation.

Here is some anecdotal evidence, I personally, see far more religious programs on medium, such as; magazine, tv, films, radio, etc...

Here is some statistical evidence. This data was taken from the ARIS. It depicts the major religions in the US by self-identification (that is, these people call themselves said religions).
76.5% Christian.
13.2% Non-Religious or Secular.

BUT! There is another trend.
Percent Change from 1990-2000
Christianity - 5%
Non-Religious or Secular - 110%

Those aren't even the largest growth rates, New Age grew by 240%, Sikhism grew by 338% and Hinduism and Buddhism grew significantly as well.


Further more! There is no space before a semi-colon, only after.