Destroying Religion

[muslimsoldier4life]

What the hell is "New Atheism"? Most Atheists could care less what you believe in, as long as you don't bother them with it.

 

[quatona]

Ok if thats the case then that the case, but it still apparently shows that faith (or lack of it) can influence behavior - be it charity, or in this case divorce rates.

No, it doesn´t. Even if a correlation can be observed concluding on causality is merely your interpretation. And even if a causality seems likely, it has yet to be shown that A causes B (as opposed to B causes A).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, it doesn´t. Even if a correlation can be observed concluding on causality is merely your interpretation. And even if a causality seems likely, it has yet to be shown that A causes B (as opposed to B causes A).

True. So you are saying empathic people who give to the homeless are caused to be religious by their empathy?

 

[mpok1519]

What the hell is "New Atheism"? Most Atheists could care less what you believe in, as long as you don't bother them with it.

Yknow, how Coca-Cola made "The New Coke" in the 80's, and that was a flop, so they went back to Coca-Cola Classic?

....yeah, I can only guess its something like that. It has to do with high-fructose corn syrup.

 

[quatona]

True. So you are saying empathic people who give to the homeless are caused to be religious by their empathy?

No, if you reread my previous post you will find that I was arguing against such unsupportable claims of causation.

 

[Svt4Him]

Conservative christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists
U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

Tisk tisk. This survey has been called into question by more than one group, and faulty surveys don't really help a case.

"to qualify as “born again,” a person must have made a personal “commitment” to Jesus Christ and believe that they will go to heaven because they confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. The respondents are not asked whether they consider themselves “born again.” So who or what is “evangelical” according to Barna? Evangelicals are a subset of the “born again” respondents. To qualify as evangelicals for Barna, the respondents (in addition to the foregoing “born again” faith in Christ) stated that they believe that salvation is through grace alone, Jesus led a sinless life, the Bible is inerrant, they have a duty to share their faith, Satan is real, and God is omnipotent and perfect and created the universe. In other words, “evangelicals” are Christians that believe what the Bible says. Apparently, “non born-again” evangelicals in Barna’s surveys do not believe the same biblical truths. Barna also reports that “[e]vangelicals were twice as likely as non-evangelical born again adults (47% vs. 21%), and almost five times more likely than notional Christians (47% vs. 10%) to place faith at the top of the list [of their priorities in life]."

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Tisk tisk. This survey has been called into question by more than one group, and faulty surveys don't really help a case.

"to qualify as “born again,” a person must have made a personal “commitment” to Jesus Christ and believe that they will go to heaven because they confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. The respondents are not asked whether they consider themselves “born again.”

LOL, always a "catch" with Christians. You're not a true "Christian" unless you do this, or you do that.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Yknow, how Coca-Cola made "The New Coke" in the 80's, and that was a flop, so they went back to Coca-Cola Classic?

....yeah, I can only guess its something like that. It has to do with high-fructose corn syrup.

Is that why we have Coke Zero now, alongside Diet Coke?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

LOL, always a "catch" with Christians. You're not a true "Christian" unless you do this, or you do that.

But Christianity is TOTALLY not a religion...

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

To the OP, I simply state that there is no possible way to "eliminate" religion completely, and any belief in the possibility of such a thing is just as foolish and impossible as belief in a god. Ideas are bulletproof, you can't destroy them. For example, let's take the U.S. Tea Party.

Even if you killed every Tea Partier in the world and destroyed any work mentioning them, thereby eliminating any sign that the movement ever existed, it would only be a matter of time before it popped back up again, because ideas are inherent in the human psyche.

It's a much more worthy use of our time to find areas we DO agree on and learn to get along despite our differences. Only then can we make this world a better place.

 

[The Nihilist]

Tisk tisk. This survey has been called into question by more than one group, and faulty surveys don't really help a case.

"to qualify as “born again,” a person must have made a personal “commitment” to Jesus Christ and believe that they will go to heaven because they confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. The respondents are not asked whether they consider themselves “born again.” So who or what is “evangelical” according to Barna? Evangelicals are a subset of the “born again” respondents. To qualify as evangelicals for Barna, the respondents (in addition to the foregoing “born again” faith in Christ) stated that they believe that salvation is through grace alone, Jesus led a sinless life, the Bible is inerrant, they have a duty to share their faith, Satan is real, and God is omnipotent and perfect and created the universe. In other words, “evangelicals” are Christians that believe what the Bible says. Apparently, “non born-again” evangelicals in Barna’s surveys do not believe the same biblical truths. Barna also reports that “[e]vangelicals were twice as likely as non-evangelical born again adults (47% vs. 21%), and almost five times more likely than notional Christians (47% vs. 10%) to place faith at the top of the list [of their priorities in life]."

Pffff, do you know whether they also only surveyed true scotsman?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Pffff, do you know whether they also only surveyed true scotsman?

I love how this logic is never applied when polls show that 80% of the usa is christian, you'd think that in reality its like 5%.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I love how this logic is never applied when polls show that 80% of the usa is christian, you'd think that in reality its like 5%.

Awfully powerful 5%...

Every study I've seen shows it up in the 75% mark. Of course, any time I bring that up to Christians, they claim that not everyone who claims Christianity actually is. Which is a legitimate point, but you'd think that there wouldn't be THAT big of a margin in terms of the faithful and the claimants.

And anyway, why would you want to claim Christianity if you didn't have some interest in following it, really?

 

[KCfromNC]

Is that why we have Coke Zero now, alongside Diet Coke?

Yep, New Atheists now have 0 calories but all the same great taste you've learned to love.

 

[Daniel25]

probably the best way is by pushing individualism to create theological anarchy, which makes the attempt process seem ridiculous.




(thanks luther).

 

[The Paul]

probably the best way is by pushing individualism to create theological anarchy, which makes the attempt process seem ridiculous.




(thanks luther).

It's not really religion unless we're worshiping a mortal authority structure, yeah?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It isn't the goal of the New Atheists to "destroy" religion, but to rationally enlighten people so that they change their minds and become atheists.

Consider this Wikipedia quote, which seems accurate to me.

New Atheism is the name given to a movement among some 21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

So they just assume people are religious because they don't think? That's rather insulting. Besides, it just confirms OP's idea that 'New Atheists' are actively trying to get rid of religion.

You mean like those charities who in the name of god will actually refuse to give you aid unless you convert to their religion and if you refuse to play along they take their soup cans elsewhere and the needy be damned?

Actually religious people are not only more likely to donate than secularists, they're also more likely to donate to non-religious causes:

Contrary to popular belief, religious conservatives are more likely to give to secular charities than the overall population ... People who devoted a "great deal of effort" to their spirituality were 28 percent more likely to give to secular charities than people who made "no effort".​

- Who Really Cares?
Arthur C. Brookes, James Q. Wilson​

Conservative christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists
U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

Christians are also more likely to get married than atheists and agnostics, and obviously you can't get divorced if you never get married. Atheists and agnostics also make up a much smaller percentage of the population that Christians in the USA. In terms of the actual number of people divorced, Christians are actually fairly low.

 

[Theofane]

And anyway, why would you want to claim Christianity if you didn't have some interest in following it, really?

For the prestige the Name has always carried.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

For the prestige the Name has always carried.

Heh. You call it prestige, but these days almost everywhere I go, most people show disgust.

 

[The Nihilist]

It's not really religion unless we're worshiping a mortal authority structure, yeah?

Does it also have to be the world's largest child sex ring, or is that just icing on the cake?