Atheism vs. Christian

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Dudebro and others,

The forum editors who are crying knuckle-dragging troglodyte, troll, poe, liar, etc. are just using the attack the man fallacy rather than address the material and rebuttals I offered. Such behavior is immature. It also makes you look desperate.

It's one thing to call people on unreasonable behavior and explain why it is unreasonable, it is another thing to merely engage in senseless name calling.

keith99 · Apr 28, 2016

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Here's an unusually well-balanced article on the subject: Did Darwin Believe in God?

It is an excellent article, which means many here will ignore it.

durangodawood · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
Durangodawood,

re: the Harvard doctor quote

One of the problems with many atheists/agnostics/evolutionists is that do not know how to properly weigh evidence and some are not even aware that there are many forms of evidence and not just scientific evidence.

In a court of law, a hostile witness is an excellent form of evidence. For example, if you can get a Republican to admit some misdeed by a fellow Republican in a court of law rather than a Democrat for example, this is very excellent hostile witness testimony all other things being equal. See hostile witness: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=884

So if the Harvard doctor is an evolutionist and he makes a concession about the very limited nature of the usefulness of evolutionary biology, this is excellent testimony all other things being equal.

Next, I did not know the doctor was an evolutionist if in fact he is one. Regardless, his hostile witness type testimony still stands. Furthermore, unless your some form of mind reader, you certainly did not prove that I knew he was an evolutionist if in fact he is one. Your cry of liar just makes you look unreasonable. Since you are not a mind reader, you are going beyond the evidence you have at your disposal. And in order to impeach the Harvard doctors testimony you would have to do something like show he was a totally incompetent doctor or he was bribed by a creationist, etc. etc. Given the quality of the Harvard Medical school, I don't believe you will show he is a quack. And something like a bribe occurring seems very implausible.

Truth = /= utility.

We are concerned more about truth here.
And this doc supports the truth of evolution.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

re: advertising charge

I have not engaged in forum discussions/debating for months and possibly years. I can't remember when I last did it.

I just was in the mood to debate atheists/agnostics.

As I mentioned earlier, the quality of the debate is rather low in terms of my opponents at this forum. And I don't think it is necessarily the quality of their debating skills in some cases. When the facts are against you it is an uphill battle to prevail.

As a result, many people unfortunately succumb to engaging in ill-behavior as a substitute for substance. They simply refuse to engage in a discussion and truly respond to other person's posts. That has certainly been the case here.

quatona · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
As I mentioned earlier, the quality of the debate is rather low in terms of my opponents at this forum.

The OP didn´t leave much space for lowering the quality of this thread.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Quatona,

I see you engaged in another irrelevant and counterfactual post to me.

The initial post has a link to well-supported Conservapedia article on Atheism vs. Christianity" with over 100 footnotes from quality sources. Google does have quality and relevancy criteria in its ranking algorithm and the article on "Atheism vs. Christianity" ranks #14 at Google USA for the term "Atheism vs. Christianity". Google estimates that there are 630,000 search results for the term "Atheism vs. Christianity" so that would put the article in the top 1% of its search results. Yahoo and Bing show similar results.

The initial post also has an informative quote from the University at Cambridge.

If the quality of the in the initial post (OP) was so poor than why does the thread already have over 200 posts to it and why does the thread have about 2,000 page views? Relative to other threads in the philosophy forum section of this website this is high for the amount of time the thread has been up.

I think you should lay off the snide and irrelevant commentary that has no basis in fact and engage in more productive posting.

FireDragon76 · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
In addition, even in atheistic Japan, researchers found that Japanese children see the world as designed. See: http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed

Characterizing Japan as atheist is true, but misleading, and shows a lack of understanding of Japanese religions.

Beliefs of children don't make something true. Human beings have a tendency to ascribe meaning and purpose to processes that don't seem to have any design or purpose- its something scientists believe is hardwired to the brain. Children, for instance, are prone to thinking that rivers exist so that boats can go down them, or so that people have a place to fish.

Hard atheism may not be very appealing but irreligion and unbelief are a growing movement in western cultures. There is even a sociological term for young people that have no religious affiliation, the "nones". This is hardly a cheer for the triumph of Christianity. If anything, Christianity faces a huge challenge by the rising tide made up of a mixture of contempt and disinterst. And a lot of that contempt is frankly warranted. Christians have failed to love their neighbors as themselves by pursuing a narrow, self-serving religious-political agenda. They've spent decades opposing human rights for some of the most vulnerable members of the human family. This makes any claim of following a loving God seem rather hollow.

ToddNotTodd · Apr 28, 2016

quatona said:
The OP didn´t leave much space for lowering the quality of this thread.

It's hard to go downhill from the lowest imaginable point.

quatona · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
Quatona,

I see you engaged in another irrelevant and counterfactual post to me.

If the quality of the in the initial post (OP) was so poor than why does the thread already have over 200 posts to it and why does the thread have about 2,000 page views? Relative to other threads in the philosophy forum section of this website this is high for the amount of time the thread has been up.

And you seriously think that the amount of replies is an indicator of the quality of an opening post?
In my observation, the most antagonistic, the most offensive and the most stupid OP´s get the most replies.

I think you should lay off the snide and irrelevant commentary

The irony.

that has no basis in fact and engage in more productive posting.

What in particular would you like to discuss with me?

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Quatona,

The fact remains you merely called the OP poor quality. You didn't support your claim. That is argument by assertion and illogical.

Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio. He who asserts must prove.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Firedragon,

The nones include theists/deists, agnostics and atheist. A very small proportion of them are atheists.

Also, consider:

Global decline of nones in the 21st Century
See also: Growth of Christianity in China
According to the Pew Research Forum:

“ These projections, which take into account demographic factors such as fertility, age composition and life expectancy, forecast that people with no religion will make up about 13% of the world’s population in 2050, down from roughly 16% as of 2010.
This is largely attributable to the fact that religious “nones” are, on average, older and have fewer children than people who are affiliated with a religion...

China, with its large population and lack of reliable data on religious switching, is something of a wild card when it comes to the future of world religion. This is especially true for the religiously unaffiliated population; more than half of the world’s people who do not identify with any religion live in China (roughly 700 million).

Some experts believe the Christian population in China is rising while the religiously unaffiliated population is falling. If this is true – and the trend continues – religious “nones” could decline as a share of the world’s population even more than the Pew Research Center study projects.[4]

”
Eric Kaufmann told a secular audience in Australia: "The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us."[5] Furthermore, Kaufmann also argues that secularization may reverse itself significantly earlier than 2050 in the West due to religious immigration and a religious population which is increasingly resistant to secularization in Europe.[6]

Percentage of nones expected to stabilize in the United States
Eric Kaufmann wrote:

“ The same is true in the United States. “Nones” may be the third-largest religious group in the United States, and ex-Catholics the fourth-largest, but the switching story needs a demographic context. If America remained 70 percent white, the population would reach European levels of secularization in two generations and Catholics would rapidly lose market share to Protestants. Instead, swift Hispanic and Asian population growth is projected to stabilize the share of nonreligious Americans at roughly today’s levels.[7]

Nones and poor survey design
Research shows that a significant amount of American nondenominational church members are checking "unaffiliated" or "no religion" on surveys.

Pat Neff Hall at Baylor University.
Based on research done by Baylor University, a February 2011 article entitled Good News about Evangelicalism declares:

“ Nondenominational churches, almost exclusively evangelical, now represent the second-largest group of Protestant churches in America, and the fastest growing section of the American religious market...
This trend has affected popular statistics and has also served to exaggerate the loss of religious faith and evangelical influence in America. Most previous research missed a new phenomenon: that members of nondenominational churches often identify themselves on surveys as unaffiliated or even as having “no religion.” Because traditional surveys do not provide categories that adequately describe those who attend nondenominational congregations, their members often check “unaffiliated” in typical surveys and questionnaires...

Similarly, claims that Americans, including evangelicals, are falling away from the faith contradict seven decades of survey research confirming that only 4 percent of Americans are atheists...

...We found no statistically significant difference between younger and older evangelicals on other moral and political issues, however. Younger evangelicals were, in fact, sometimes more conservative than their elders.

...The number of evangelicals remains high, and their percentage among practicing Christians in America is, if anything, rising.[11]

Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Nones#Global_decline_of_nones_in_the_21st_Century

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Firedragon,

Futhermore, the Nones are not the most wise/stable people.

I cite:

Religiously unaffiliated and suicide
See also: Atheism and suicide
In 2004, the American Journal of Psychiatry reported:

“ Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.[13][14] source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Nones#Religiously_unaffiliated_and_suicide

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Firedragon,

In addition, according to a 2010 journal article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion the prevailing view is that "strong religion" will increase in the United States. See the journal article Secularism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism? The Religious Composition of the United States to 2043. Source: http://www.sneps.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jssr_15101.pdf or http://www.conservapedia.com/Americ...religion.2Firreligion_demographic_projections

In addition, consider:

In November of 2015, the Christian Post reported

“ Distinguished scholars from Baylor University on Tuesday decried the myth that religion is on the decline in America and argued that it's actually growing and is stronger than ever.
Professors from Baylor University's Institute for Religion Studies in Waco, Texas, participated in a panel discussion at the National Press Club focusing on the "secularization myth," where they lambasted the media's spin on various surveys which has led many to believe that irreligion is on the rise in the United States...

J. Gordon Melton, professor of American religious history, explained that although Mainline denominations have lost membership in recent years, the number of denominations in America has increased steadily since the 1960s. Now, there are over 1,000 denominations in the U.S.

Melton cited the Encyclopedia of American Religion and the 2010 American Religious Census to show that, as the American population has risen, church membership in America has risen at a much quicker rate.[1]

”
The Baylor University website similarly declares:

“ Recent coverage of American religious life, by focusing on the decline of some of the larger denominations and the new organized life of non-theistic communities, have missed the larger story that since World War II, religion in the United States has grown spectacularly and ahead of the population curve. America is now the most religious it has ever been with Church membership at an all-time high and relatively new worshipping communities representing the spectrum of the world's religions now spread across the urban landscape. As a nation in which the great majority of its people have affiliated with a religious community, without government coercion, America is possibly the most religious country that the world has ever seen.”
source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Baylor_University_researchers_on_American_Christianity

quatona · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
Quatona,

The fact remains you merely called the OP poor quality.

I did.

You didn't support your claim.

I didn´t. The OP is there for everyone to read.

That is argument by assertion and illogical.

It wasn´t even meant to be an argument, so it can´t be an "argument by X".. It was a mere statement.
Just like your entire post about the low quality of your opponents was, to which I responded.

Plus, it isn´t illogical.

You better take a closer look at your own fallacious arguments (e.g. I got a lot of responses, so my OP must be high quality.)

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Firedragon,

You wrote concerning Christians:

"Christianity faces a huge challenge by the rising tide made up of a mixture of contempt and disinterst. And a lot of that contempt is frankly warranted. Christians have failed to love their neighbors as themselves by pursuing a narrow, self-serving religious-political agenda."

I hope don't have the facts at your disposal and this is a misunderstanding.

I cite:

Studies on religious vs. non-religious and charity

A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[3][4] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[5][6] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%)

Arthur C. Brooks wrote in Policy Review regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research):

“ The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.[9] ”

ABC News reported:
“ ...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities

Source: conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_charity

What atheists say about atheists and atheist giving

Foundation Beyond Belief is a charitable foundation created to focus on "humanist generosity and compassion."[18]

The atheist Hemant Mehta said about raising money from fellow nonbelievers: "Meanwhile, I’ve had one hell of a time convincing people to give to the Foundation Beyond Belief — and I help lead that organization."

In June of 2014, the African-American atheist woman Sikivu Hutchinson wrote in the Washington Post that white atheists organizations in the United States generally focus on church/state separation and creationism issues and not the concerns the less affluent African-American population faces.[27] Hutchinson also mentioned that church organizations do focus on helping poor African Americans

Source: conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_charity

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Quatona,

You wrote: e.g. I got a lot of responses, so my OP must be high quality.

Of course, I never said this. I pointed out that the thread has a lot of views/posts and then asked you why this is so. You never answered this question. This is sour grapes on your part. Given your posts to me where your don't support your assertions and you don't answer reasonable questions, I suspect composing engaging initial posts may be a challenge to you.

quatona · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
Quatona,

You wrote: e.g. I got a lot of responses, so my OP must be high quality.

Of course, I never said this. I pointed out that the thread has a lot of views/posts and then asked you why this is so.

Don´t be dishonest.
Actually, you wrote:

If the quality of the in the initial post (OP) was so poor than [sic!] why does the thread already have over 200 posts to it and why does the thread have about 2,000 page views? Relative to other threads in the philosophy forum section of this website this is high for the amount of time the thread has been up.

(emphasis added)

Your "question" clearly implied a relation between the quality of an OP and the amount of responses, which rendered your question a rhethorical one.

You never answered this question.

Yes, I did.

I suspect composing engaging initial posts may be a challenge to you.

It´s the easiest thing in the world: Combine polarization, antagonization and some falsehoods, tell other people what their convictions are, mix in some offensive remarks for good measure, predict you will be contradicted - and you will drown in responses.
It´s just something that I´m not interested in doing. .
But feel free to pride yourself in creating a thread with many responses (which, though, according to your own assertion, are for the most parts poor quality).

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Quatona,

An addendum:

The initial post has a link to well-supported Conservapedia article on Atheism vs. Christianity" with over 100 footnotes from quality sources. Google does have quality and relevancy criteria in its ranking algorithm and the article on "Atheism vs. Christianity" ranks #14 at Google USA for the term "Atheism vs. Christianity". Google estimates that there are 630,000 search results for the term "Atheism vs. Christianity" so that would put the article in the top 1% of its search results. Yahoo and Bing show similar results.

The initial post also has an informative quote from the University at Cambridge.

Quatona, you still haven't put together a rationale why you claimed the initial post was poor. There is a stereotype of the angry and bitter atheist. Your commentary on the initial post was rather negative and sour. I certainly hope this is not your general disposition.

In my next post, I will present social science studies showing that atheists exhibit more anger in various aspects.

quatona · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
Quatona, you still haven't put together a rationale why you claimed the initial post was poor.

...and I am not going to.
I did point out some flaws, though.

There is a stereotype of the angry and bitter atheist.

You can shove your stereotypes up a warm and safe place.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Quatona,

You are at it again with a sour post you didn't support.

You said the initial post had "some falsehoods". Of course, you never showed there were falsehoods in the initial post.

Quatona, what falsehoods the initial post have? If it contained falsehoods, then surely you could point them out. But you are not doing that. Why is that?

Atheism vs. Christian

Active Member

sola dosis facit venenum

re Member

Active Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Iconoclast

"God"? What do you mean??

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Active Member

Active Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Active Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency