Backroom Poll. The (major) Religious Affiliation in Backroom... [Archive]

Cute Wolf

02-10-2010, 11:33

Well, I was quite confused when reading some threads on the backroom because I don't know exactly... who are affiliated to which religion / philoshophy... well, hope this little pool won't hurt anyone...

Please note that this was "Major" affiliation... so don't ask about finer details

1) Christian = everyone who believe in Jesus, all including Catholics, Orthodox, and Christian Denominations.

2) Deist = everyone who believe in God, but who is God? Not my Business... including such as Agnostics, Free Thinkers, etc... Agnostics Ignosticism....

3) Jewish = no matter how orthodox or secular, if you identify yourself as Jew, choose this

4) Complete Atheist = No God, that's all... thank you.

5) Islam = including Sunni, Shia... at least you believe in Muhammad's teachings

6) Far-East Religions = Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto... etc

7) New age - Hindu = everything comes on spiritual meanings, comes from India, but doesn't related directly with far-east

8) Satanic = HELL YEAH!!! SATAN RULEZ!!!!

9) Others = Animism, Dinamism, traditional religion of native peoples....

10) Religion? I still confused with my own religion!!!!

Well, hope this poll will give us better insight on who are our discussion friends here, at the backroom, so we can avoid unintended offensive thingies.... (you know better)

Beskar

02-10-2010, 11:34

You missed out Agnostic and Ignostic. I am personally an ignostic.

Edit: You stuck Agnosticism and Ignosticism in with "everyone who believes in God". It is actually arguably closer to athiesm due to agnostics having no definition stance on the existence of any god and ignostic view of "What do you mean by god?" with a default position accepting current explanations. There is also Antitheism which is pretty much "militant athiesm",

These terms and athiesm could/should be put under a nonthiest category.

Samurai Waki

02-10-2010, 11:40

Somewhere between apathy and deism.

Subotan

02-10-2010, 14:36

Scientologist?

al Roumi

02-10-2010, 14:42

5) Islam = including Sunni, Shia... at least you believe in Muhammad

OUCH! Er to Muslims Muhamad is a prophet, not a god, and not to be worshipped. Allah is the only god and praise be to him (or something). Worship of Muhamad is tantamount to idolatry for Muslims - strictly against their faith.

I suggest you modify the above to "believe in Allah".

I, incidentaly am an athiest.

Subotan

02-10-2010, 14:57

Ha, I missed that

And what about the Druze?

Cute Wolf

02-10-2010, 14:59

al Roumi

02-10-2010, 15:05

Repaired into --> Muhammad's teachings... :grin:

I don't mean to nit-pick and i do realise you are trying to avoid each option saying "I believe in God", but it's still not right! :embarassed:

5) Islam = including Sunni, Shia... at least you believe in follow Muhammad's teachings

Viking

02-10-2010, 15:08

Since the option "don't have any" was left out, I voted satanic since it sounded cooler than "other".

Myrddraal

02-10-2010, 15:09

EDIT: double post.

Myrddraal

02-10-2010, 15:09

Well, I was quite confused when reading some threads on the backroom because I don't know exactly... who are affiliated to which religion / philoshophy...

Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't you judge what people are saying based on the content of their argument rather than (dare I say it) a prejudice based on their religion? :tongue:

Lemur

02-10-2010, 15:11

Scientologist?
Hail Xenu! Hail Xenu! Hail Xenu!

Beskar

02-10-2010, 15:11

Since the option "don't have any" was left out, I voted satanic since it sounded cooler than "other".

I am currently boycotting the inclusion of Ignostic in with deism.

Meneldil

02-10-2010, 16:50

What about all sorts of neo paganisms? That's is new age but certainly not from India.

Pannonian

02-10-2010, 17:29

Centurion1

02-10-2010, 18:17

i dont consider all of christianity the same thing there ar emajor differences between me and say sfts or zain theologically.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-10-2010, 18:31

Sigurd

02-10-2010, 18:46

I will chorus the others regarding agnosticism.
I know what the wikipedia says regarding Deism and I disagree with it. Deism to me means a closed heaven or clockwork creation. I would argue that most of Christianity/Judaism/Islam belongs in that category.

There are no current "communication" with deity and they live by what was once revealed. Hence they are Deists.
Another point: It is nice to see so many acknowledging that Atheism is a major religion. :beam:

If you want agnosticism and atheism in this poll, they should be listed under:
Not affiliated with a major religion.

Strike For The South

02-10-2010, 18:58

i dont consider all of christianity the same thing there ar emajor differences between me and say sfts or zain theologically.

The only true christians are protestants, catholics are idol worshipers.

Aemilius Paulus

02-10-2010, 18:59

OUCH! Er to Muslims Muhamad is a prophet, not a god, and not to be worshipped. Allah is the only god and praise be to him (or something). Worship of Muhamad is tantamount to idolatry for Muslims - strictly against their faith.

I suggest you modify the above to "believe in Allah".

Jesus Christ and Muhammad, Cute Wolf, you live in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation (i.e. more Indonesian Muslims than of any other single nationality). How did you miss that and still be comfortable? :tongue: I mean, you probably live in a more tolerant area, but those bombings of mosques and churches...

But of course, that could have been a simple misarrangement of words for the sake of brevity, on the other hand :shrug:, which is probably what was the real reason.

Louis VI the Fat

02-10-2010, 19:19

All you Christians are atheists just like me. I simply happen to not believe in just one more god than you do. :beam:

Well, agnostics are atheists, necessarily. I like the word "antitheist" a lot though.Only my creed of atheism is right. Agnostics must burn at the stake for their heresy.

Cute Wolf

02-10-2010, 19:29

Jesus Christ and Muhammad, Cute Wolf, you live in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation (i.e. more Indonesian Muslims than of any other single nationality). How did you miss that and still be comfortable? :tongue: I mean, you probably live in a more tolerant area, but those bombings of mosques and churches...

But of course, that could have been a simple misarrangement of words for the sake of brevity, on the other hand :shrug:, which is probably what was the real reason.

Yeah... you have contact with sonic right? then ask him about that :grin: Not entire Indonesian muslims are hard-liners jihadim, most of them are Beer-Drinking, Pork-Eating, skip prayings, and even loathe religious rituals things... Did you know, until 90's, most of Indonesian muslims still common to eat pigs?!? I'm not joking, if you found an old recipe books from Indonesia, you'll astonished when you see how many alcoholic beverages and porks we consume... Rising Education quality... "Ironically" made a big rise in hardliner muslims... eah, hardliners exists here for a long time... but after they are given grants to build schools and universities... they start produce hardline acedemics, and even terrorists. Blame the USA anti-communists grants for brewing their own enemies.

Well - well, but put aside that ironical trends, you must still remember that most of Indonesian muslims are still Beer-Drinking, Pork-Eating, and Skip-Praying kind of guys.... :grin: ... the radical muslims are rising, it's true, but most of them become radicals through peer pressures, and negative propaganda against western entities (especially the Israel-Palestinian issues). Why I tell you to ask sonic for details, because he was an extreme type ofl "Beer-Drinkin", "Pork-Eatin", "Never Prayin", and "Ridiculously Emo" guy....

And I must said that officially, Atheism is forbidden in Indonesia... you can place a bet that Atheism was still a big factor... but as the ridiculous stereotypes that atheist = communist, and communists are strictly forbidden... well, you can't list atheists as your system of belief here... on your ID card...

Furunculus

02-10-2010, 19:58

indifferent agnostic, but voted athiest in the absence of my preferred option.

Rhyfelwyr

02-10-2010, 20:02

Yeah, IIRC, many of Indonesia's Muslims are 'abangan' Muslims, meaning though they are technically Muslims, they are heavily influenced by their own local native/pagan practices. Kind of like the Muslim equivalent of Catholics.

*runs away*

gaelic cowboy

02-10-2010, 20:04

All you Christians are atheists just like me. I simply happen to not believe in just one more god than you do. :beam:

Only my creed of atheism is right. Agnostics must burn at the stake for their heresy.

Hear hear

Aemilius Paulus

02-10-2010, 23:09

Yeah... you have contact with sonic right? then ask him about that :grin: Not entire Indonesian muslims are hard-liners jihadim, most of them are Beer-Drinking, Pork-Eating, skip prayings, and even loathe religious rituals things... Did you know, until 90's, most of Indonesian muslims still common to eat pigs?!? I'm not joking, if you found an old recipe books from Indonesia, you'll astonished when you see how many alcoholic beverages and porks we consume... Rising Education quality... "Ironically" made a big rise in hardliner muslims... eah, hardliners exists here for a long time... but after they are given grants to build schools and universities... they start produce hardline acedemics, and even terrorists. Blame the USA anti-communists grants for brewing their own enemies.

Well - well, but put aside that ironical trends, you must still remember that most of Indonesian muslims are still Beer-Drinking, Pork-Eating, and Skip-Praying kind of guys.... :grin: ... the radical muslims are rising, it's true, but most of them become radicals through peer pressures, and negative propaganda against western entities (especially the Israel-Palestinian issues). Why I tell you to ask sonic for details, because he was an extreme type ofl "Beer-Drinkin", "Pork-Eatin", "Never Prayin", and "Ridiculously Emo" guy....

And I must said that officially, Atheism is forbidden in Indonesia... you can place a bet that Atheism was still a big factor... but as the ridiculous stereotypes that atheist = communist, and communists are strictly forbidden... well, you can't list atheists as your system of belief here... on your ID card...
Look, I had an Indonesian friend in 8th grade, I know how it generally is (very generally), but whatever it is, from what I heard was that Indonesia was on average much more religious than any average Western secular nation, and I did not think that one of the most crucial components of Islam escaped from you. But it says good things about you and your country IMHO, if you know so little about Islam ~;) - you can try to find out yourself why, or ask me if you give up :yes:

Beskar

02-10-2010, 23:32

And I must said that officially, Atheism is forbidden in Indonesia... you can place a bet that Atheism was still a big factor... but as the ridiculous stereotypes that atheist = communist, and communists are strictly forbidden... well, you can't list atheists as your system of belief here... on your ID card...

I have to say, I am not sure which I am most disturbed about.

The fact atheism is forbidden or the fact you have to display your faith on an Identity Card.

Husar

02-10-2010, 23:36

I'm still confused...so where is that pool now?!? ~;)

CountArach

02-10-2010, 23:41

Well, agnostics are atheists, necessarily. I like the word "antitheist" a lot though.
The best one I've heard someone describe themselves as is an apatheist. One who does not care if there is a God.

Centurion1

02-10-2010, 23:45

Aemilius Paulus

02-10-2010, 23:51

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 00:05

Ah that it did. While in some ways it stifled it overall increased knowledge and helped the West to Dominance. Renaissance was most definitely helped along by the generous patronage of the Church as were other events.

Catholicism also played the role of preserver after the end of the Roman Empire by retaining knowledge in monastery's and libraries.

Great book on just that subject is How the Irish Saved Civilization.

naut

02-11-2010, 00:08

Canaanite?

The Wizard

02-11-2010, 00:09

I'd have voted in this poll if it had "areligious" or some variant of that instead of "atheist". I am not an atheist, and voting "other" just sucks.

EDIT: Oh boy, the OP. An agnost is NOT a deist.

EDIT2: Cute Wolf, just cause I'm interested, are you perhaps Moluccan (Ambonese) or something? Being Christian and all.

Beskar

02-11-2010, 00:18

The best one I've heard someone describe themselves as is an apatheist. One who does not care if there is a God.

There is also concepts such as Metaphysical naturalism which readily get dismissed. [definition: see below]

So technicially, I would be more of an athiest-antitheist-metaphysical naturalist-ignostic as I ascribe to different thoughts at different levels, in form of a construct.

To explain this, I will explain the order of importance and thought.

Main fundamental aspect is the ignostic.

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
If god means wolves to those in that tribe, means the river in another, or means the king in that culture, and all those other definitions and examples, how can you actually talk about the existance of god? Also, that wolf is just a wolf, that river is just a river, that king is just a king. If they are something I term 'Massively Powerful Being', then they are just that, a massively powerful being, may it be an advanced Artifical Intelligence UFO at the centre of the galaxy which can manulipate things at a quantum level or otherwise. The application of 'god' to these things is seemingly and obviously meaningless.

Secondly, as some one with a background in science (Since I have a BSc and a MSc), I am a metaphysical naturalist.

Metaphysical naturalism regards nature as all that exists or can exist, and assumes that observable events in nature are explainable only by resort to empirically observable causes. Consequently, supernatural agency is discounted, as are some abstractions thought to be independent of the physical universe (e.g., numbers).
Though, if we cannot currently observe or measure events, I believe in that we can do in the future, thus nature is everything is that exists or can exist.

Due to these points, I tend to hold an antitheist opinion.

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The etymological roots of the word are the Greek 'anti-' and 'theismos'. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.
Since organised religion conflicts with the first two points (plus the fact they are generally a means of control and power), I tend to have an antitheist element.

Finally, as god cannot be defined, and most definitions of god attempt to say he is supernatural, and as a naturalist, I am opposed to this, and the fact all these organised religions are obviously not correct. I take the final stance that there must not be a 'god;.

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.

I am not sure if the people who are selecting "atheist" agree with my reasoning or my points, for what reasons they have of their own. However, I think the underlying thinking and stance I sort of laid out above explains why I naturally conclude as I do.

Beskar

02-11-2010, 00:23

EDIT: Oh boy, the OP. An agnost is NOT a deist.

I already said that in my first reply. I doubt he is going to change it.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Aka, Agnostics don't have a belief there is a god. However, they believe we do not have the knowledge as to assertain there is actually is or is not a god.

Arguably, it is classified as "weak atheism", because they actually possess no belief, but they do not adopt an null hypothesis that atheism possesses to reject the existence altogether. The null hypothesis is basically the idea there is nothing, no difference, etc, many athiests reject the belief because there is no knowledge of god, therefore, it is like me saying "I have fairies living at the bottom of my garden", without any proof that they are infact fairies at the bottom of my garden and I can't provide, then they hold the belief that I do not have any fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Louis VI the Fat

02-11-2010, 00:27

Whats up with all the Catholic bashing!! Maybe most of my Church will take it but you better watch out.

Yeah strike we may have our idols but at least we dont dance with snakes. :laugh:

The only true christians are protestants, catholics are idol worshipers.

That is such a broad and ridiculous statement i'm not sure whethe rto take you seriously.Oh, I would take SFTS very seriously. He hates Catholics. Me, a firm Catholic myself, founder of the Facebook group 'Benedict (pbuh) for EU president', am constantly outraged by Strike's Catho-bashing, by his perennial diatribes about (imagined) Catholic attacks on secular Texas.

I don't understand it. The guy's obviously got issues. Shame. Otherwise, he's a reasonable chap. :book:

Edit: meh, suppose I should add the disclaimer that all of the above is meant for entertainment purposes only.

Samurai Waki

02-11-2010, 00:32

Protestants tend to revile Catholics, until something of a spiritual crisis within the faith emerges, and then they actually take the advice of the Papacy... it's a funny dynamic.

Furunculus

02-11-2010, 00:47

The best one I've heard someone describe themselves as is an apatheist. One who does not care if there is a God.

ooohh *claps hands* that sounds like me! cheers CA.

and lol at Strike, i find myself in sympathy with that view speaking as a Brit.

miotas

02-11-2010, 01:00

Well, agnostics are atheists, necessarily. I like the word "antitheist" a lot though.

An agnostic is a person who doesn't know if there any gods or believes it is impossible to know. An atheist is someone who knows that there are no gods. It would be far more accurate to put the Christians and Muslims in with the Jews since they all worship the same god.

My particular brand of agnosticism is actually bordering on the apathetic, but since I am replying to a religious question here, I can't be completely apathetic can I :tongue:

Husar

02-11-2010, 01:00

I personally dislike Catholics for what I view as archaic beliefs, but this is outweighed by my respect for the Catholic intellectual tradition and their lack of anti-intellectualism in comparison to other Christian denominations. In fact, Catholicism long stimulated scholasticism and sciences (as well as opposing the latter, for that matter, so it is mixed - but what matters is that Catholicism did inspire science, and it created the conditions which inspired such studies).

Sources: That is what Joseph Campbell said at least :shrug:

Didn't the catholics burn heaps of books containing advanced knowledge (in comparison to their own) during the reconquista?
That's what we learned in highschool anyway, that the moors were quite advanced in fields like medicine and the catholics burned all their libraries etc. regardless.

Louis VI the Fat

02-11-2010, 01:11

I am not sure if the people who are selecting "atheist" agree with my reasoning or my points, for what reasons they have of their own. I would vehemently agree or disagree, but I guess I'm just too much of an apatheist. I simply don't believe in (any concept of) a Christian God no more than I believe in re-incarnation or animism.

The conflicting notion to me is not atheist - 'Christian' deity. It is, rather, no belief - belief. I don't have a ready philosophy that disputes each and every single form of belief, every single god. The number of gods being virtually infinite - such is the scope of human imagination - it would be a practical impossibility too to have a ready negation of all of them.

I am simply atheistic towards all of them in much the same way a Christian is atheistic towards all of them. With the sole difference that I don't believe in one more god.

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 02:28

Didn't the catholics burn heaps of books containing advanced knowledge (in comparison to their own) during the reconquista?
That's what we learned in highschool anyway, that the moors were quite advanced in fields like medicine and the catholics burned all their libraries etc. regardless.

Yes but typically in the make us feel bad brand of western education they don't mention the libraries worth of books Christians saved from the ravaging barbarians of the dark ages nor the thousands of books that monks and other clergy wrote during this time. Even the crusade which is Christianity's worst moment (debatable in my mind) the Crusade's lasting legacy was the spread of culture and technology.

Edit: and thank you Louis for confusing me even further. I assume your comment was not serious as well. Ah well we know all Frenchmen are all Catholics they just try to appear more cultured and cosmopolitan :wink:

and lol at Strike, i find myself in sympathy with that view speaking as a Brit.

Please are you referring to COE? That was a political split more than anything else. Your sister church in the Us are Anglicans, no? Basically Catholics except you have women priest, which is a capital idea.

Imagine for a moment if the Church had given the king that divorce and he hadn't made the split....... Oh Mr. Turtledove I have your next idea

Fixiwee

02-11-2010, 02:38

I personally dislike Catholics for what I view as archaic beliefs, but this is outweighed by my respect for the Catholic intellectual tradition and their lack of anti-intellectualism in comparison to other Christian denominations. In fact, Catholicism long stimulated scholasticism and sciences (as well as opposing the latter, for that matter, so it is mixed - but what matters is that Catholicism did inspire science, and it created the conditions which inspired such studies).

Sources: That is what Joseph Campbell said at least :shrug:

I see it quite similiar. I also dislike Catholics for their archaic beliefs and conservative mentality. But the amount of stuff christian monks safed from antiquity is just amazing. Then comes all the culture, the support for art and architecture. If you travel through Europe nearly every monument has something to do with the Catholics.
It's always easy for "us" non-religion people wo wave the finger at the Roman church. But really you have to give em a lot of credit for many things.

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 02:48

I see it quite similiar. I also dislike Catholics for their archaic beliefs and conservative mentality. But the amount of stuff christian monks safed from antiquity is just amazing. Then comes all the culture, the support for art and architecture. If you travel through Europe nearly every monument has something to do with the Catholics.
It's always easy for "us" non-religion people wo wave the finger at the Roman church. But really you have to give em a lot of credit for many things.

Thank you I want to frame this. You don't have to like my faith, but it is nice for someone to acknowledgesome of the good we have done for the world.

and conservative catholicism....... maybe in some ways but many catholics vote liberally in the US (actually i think it is relatively evenly split.)

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 02:59

That is such a broad and ridiculous statement i'm not sure whethe rto take you seriously.

1. I don't dance with snakes, I'm not a pencoastal.

2. If you want to know what my church taught me please refer to this quote; “Life in Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.”

3. Removed

4. Catholic=Yankee=Damned yellow bellied Communist

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 03:05

Removed

Beskar

02-11-2010, 03:11

I love how Catholics and Protestants have broken out in a fight in this thread.

It just speaks volumes.

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 03:12

i have never had a problem with a protestant in my life...... before now.

Edit: rather foolishly he links anglo-saxon to protestant. Hey the wasp ideals are over. I'm english too on my mothers side.

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 03:18

Removed

That could've been better. I would've have liked to see refrences to some of the following: Nascar, Meth, Wife beating, Obesity, Our low Iqs.

Not bad , the KKK refrences are outdated though

Removed

Hey man, I spelled more than that correctly.
Clearly my post is meant to be taken in jest, Let's take a deep breath

Cute Wolf

02-11-2010, 03:22

Look, I had an Indonesian friend in 8th grade, I know how it generally is (very generally), but whatever it is, from what I heard was that Indonesia was on average much more religious than any average Western secular nation, and I did not think that one of the most crucial components of Islam escaped from you. But it says good things about you and your country IMHO, if you know so little about Islam ~;) - you can try to find out yourself why, or ask me if you give up :yes:

That was the entire 8th grade always think about themself, no offence, a 8th grade students will most likely follow what his teacher said at school :wink:, no, to be honest, I was 21 years old, allready travelled to many parts of Indonesia, and you must know that most Indonesian aren't religious at all... yeah, it was a fact that religion is officially taught at school, and even it was a one important aspect to determine your graduation for most schools. BUT, Once they reach Highschool / University age, they'll grow either to become neglacting Religions, or become a fanatical one. Listen up, the fact that Indonesia is still a secular country lies in this important fact, most of didn't took religion seriously. I suggest you come here and see, wht kind of thigies sold at the market for open... yeah, beers and porks are still a common goodies, and most of my "muslim" friends still enjoy them. And everytime when the 5 times of muslim praying was up, only a handful of my muslim friends does the actual praying... the rest? they don't pray at all. You dare to call that behaviour religious? :wink:

Oh yeah, if you still want to said that was my "isolated incident" you should learn where I live, and I allready observe that behaviour everywhere... I lived in Bandung, west Java, a region which fanatical hardliners has a considerable influence. A region where islamic terrorists are highest, and the fact that west java are the province with highest incident of chruch and temple burning. But while islamic values are practiced in hard way for some men, most commoners are actually never become a religious person at all. The problem with this are the hard-liner muslims more often comes from the highly educated class and constantly spread the propaganda (Indonesian is a religious country).... that was a delibrate LIES.

BTW, of course, you may said my viewpoints are distorted because I was a "minority" group of Christians.... that's why I ask you to ask Sonic, as he was once hard liner muslims, but now he turns to be hedonistic emo guy..

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 03:27

That could've been better. I would've have liked to see refrences to some of the following: Nascar, Meth, Wife beating, Obesity, Our low Iqs.

Not bad , the KKK refrences are outdated though

Removed
Hey man, I spelled more than that correctly.
Clearly my post is meant to be taken in jest, Let's take a deep breath

If you were kidding i am very sorry. I am very sensitive about my heritage though.

And i couldnt mention the nascar.......... because i watch sometimes *hangs head in shame*

Meth, Wife beating, Obesity, Our low Iqs.

I'll work on that.

Personally i found you evolution of the yankee rather good. especially since it ended with cowardly communists. Really very cliched and insulting. Also enraging if you think someone is serious.

by the way im not from the northeast and my father, while from conneticut is ashamed and tells everyone he was born somewhere else. I'd say where but it would be rather hard to believe.

now that i think of it i should have brought up texas. dam

Louis VI the Fat

02-11-2010, 03:30

the KKK See, I knew it. Your posts have long konvinced me of your pyromaniac Saturday night hobbies and diverse use of bedsheets. :no:

Have you people still not learned the value of diversity and understanding??

https://img195.imageshack.us/img195/6279/kkkbj.jpg

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 03:31

If you were kidding i am very sorry. I am very sensitive about my heritage though.

And i couldnt mention the nascar.......... because i watch sometimes *hangs head in shame*

I'll work on that.

Personally i found you evolution of the yankee rather good. especially since it ended with cowardly communists. Really very cliched and insulting. Also enraging if you think someone is serious.

by the way im not from the northeast and my father, while from conneticut is ashamed and tells everyone he was born somewhere else. I'd say where but it would be rather hard to believe.

now that i think of it i should have brought up texas. dam
Its fine man, It was a mistake on my part thinking you would just "know". My aplogies

Anyone outside of Texas is a yankee to a Texan.

@ Louis :love:

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 03:34

By the way i got into Texas Tech. And Texas A&M. after this little conversation i think it best if i don't go though. :laugh:

And i lived in Texas for a couple years. Corpus Christi actually before my father retired.

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 03:38

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 03:40

I am now finished i hope you enjoyed the debacle of the young american come close to killing somebody.

CountArach

02-11-2010, 03:59

Please keep all discussion civil. Whilst I understand that the above comments were in jest, if they are please remember to use smilies, or use a disclaimer as Louis did in his earlier post. It is very easy for someone to skim through this thread and think that the stereotyping is entirely serious.

Fixiwee

02-11-2010, 13:05

I thought this is interessting. Just to make it clear; this is only statistics:

https://i.imgur.com/kpb5A.png

Furunculus

02-11-2010, 13:34

Please are you referring to COE? That was a political split more than anything else. Your sister church in the Us are Anglicans, no? Basically Catholics except you have women priest, which is a capital idea.

Imagine for a moment if the Church had given the king that divorce and he hadn't made the split....... Oh Mr. Turtledove I have your next idea
yup, and the reason why it is so awesome (speaking as an apatheist) is that it does not submit to the authority of rome. nuff said.

that would have been a great shame, we achieved awesome things ever since henry found away to keep on chucking his junk around!

Hax

02-11-2010, 13:53

Buddhist (gosh).

Specifically, Tantrayana Esoteric Buddhism

Even more specifically, I'm following the teachings of Kobo Daishi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukai), who founded Koyasan Shingon-shu.

CountArach

02-11-2010, 13:55

Hosakawa Tito

02-11-2010, 14:30

Hmmm, Atheists bar graph color is pink. There's a lesson in there somewhere, but I can't put my finger on it...

Tellos Athenaios

02-11-2010, 14:35

The irony is that the “only true Christian (tm)” is only comfortable if rebuking other Christians for their heresy whilst defending his own reading of the Bible. This goes somewhat more for the “Protestant” kind of Christianity than Catholicism; but really that is what Christianity has been about since its inception.

Anyway, myself when it comes to religion I find it fascinating but maintain a “what the heck do I know anyway” idea. So the last option fits me perfectly.

Fixiwee

02-11-2010, 14:49

I find those statistics to be rather strange. Why use average IQ instead of percentage of college graduates (also note how some of the same results are coloured differently)? It also seems to believe that religiosity affects these other things whereas they are all in fact emblematic of bigger social problems.
Looking at statistics is interpreting them. This always means that two people looking at one statistic will have three opinions about it.

I do wonder about the conection of religion and IQ. There seems to be something to it. Looking at the scandinavian countries with the worlds best education system and IQ percentage and the high percentage of agnostics/atheist. (correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik only 40% of the population in scandinavia belongs to a registered church.)
Another example is the infamous fact that about 93% of the members in the National Academy of Sciences are agnostics/atheists as well.

I'm not saying that people whoe believe in god/s are idiots by any means and I very well respect religion as I posted before.

CountArach

02-11-2010, 14:53

The Wizard

02-11-2010, 14:54

To return to the whole Catholic (*cough*dirty Papist scum*cough* ~;)~;p) thing, I admire Jesuits for their intelligence and learning while despising everything else in the Catholic church. Hey, I was raised by radical atheists coming from a hardcore Reformed region, bite me ~:smoking:

EDIT: Fixiwee, AFAIK in Scandinavia the vast majority of citizens are registered members of the local Lutheran churches, because every Scandinavian country (this does not include Finland) has a state religion, and babies are immediately registered as church members upon birth (which would make me rage as a parent, as an aside). Chuch attendance is exceptionally low, however.

Fixiwee

02-11-2010, 14:59

Hax

02-11-2010, 15:00

Hey, I was raised by radical atheists coming from a hardcore Reformed region, bite me

I would, but it goes against the theory of ahimsa.

Cute Wolf

02-11-2010, 15:06

I remember about Hooahguy...
So at least we can conclude that is no muslim here... :grin:

OOps... I just forgot LeftEyeNine

Husar

02-11-2010, 16:11

Why use average IQ instead of percentage of college graduates (also note how some of the same results are coloured differently)?

Because both don't say a whole lot?

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 16:17

I thought this is interessting. Just to make it clear; this is only statistics:

Correlation /=/ cuasation.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-11-2010, 17:28

I would say that is a result of higher education rather than higher IQ. The two go hand-in-hand generally but only an effective education system will bring out critical thinking skills, which may be lacking in some.

I wouldn't even say critical thinking skills. It sounds more like culture. How else would you explain the wide discrepencies in atheism between western countries?

It doesn't matter how smart you are, you'll stick with religion if you were brought up that way and it works for you.

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 17:35

Correlation /=/ cuasation.
Ditch the cliché... You are not making an argument, but simply throwing words around. Or was the misspelling intentional, meaning you are trolling? Gah, one can never tell with you, Strike :tongue:.

That many correlations are not a coincidence. Fixi was not explicitly naming any cause of the negative statistics, and even hinting towards something would not work with that poll as there are so many factors. I would assume poverty leads to low intelligence, crime, and religion - since it appeals to the simple-minded more than it does to an intellectual, and religion makes tough lives a whole lot more bearable. What is so wrong with what I just said, from a statistical and sociological point of view?

I find it strangely suspicious that there is such a large IQ difference, but then again, abstract reasoning, or what the today's tests are, is not a strength of rural and poverty-stricken folk... This is also why IQ scores are rising, a.k.a the Flynn Effect - because as the societies grow more sophisticated, especially in technological terms, abstract reasoning becomes more lucid.

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 18:00

. I would assume poverty leads to low intelligence, crime, and religion -

Ding Ding Ding!!!!!

Couple that with the stronger church tradition in the south and you get those statistics. I would argue many people here just say they are christians simply because saying you're not one is considered something of a social fopah.

Being religous does not make you dumb fat, it's about the culture in which you are raised. The south has always looked to the church as the center of social, not just religous life. It is only natural for one to be a christian becuase so much of life is centered around it.

I can't spell and don't care to proofread

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 18:15

Ding Ding Ding!!!!!

Couple that with the stronger church tradition in the south and you get those statistics. I would argue many people here just say they are christians simply because saying you're not one is considered something of a social fopah.

Being religous does not make you dumb fat, it's about the culture in which you are raised. The south has always looked to the church as the center of social, not just religous life. It is only natural for one to be a christian becuase so much of life is centered around it.
Well yeah, that is what I always said... Poverty->low IQ->hardship+tradition->voilà, you are now religious.

The trouble is, once someone is religious they tend to become even more recalcitrant in their stand against science or reason (sorry, I am singling out mainly Southerners here, mainly Baptists :sweatdrop:), and they pass on the religion, which coupled with poverty creates a vicious circle. Remove the religion, and the cycle is slightly easier to change, although not by much. But then the crime-rate can easily rise... Everything is a double-edged sword.

What is really disturbing though, are the religious folk who are not poor, but are ignorant as a result of their religion :sad:. That can be blamed on religion. At least the poor have a very good excuse - I do not expect someone living in such hardship in the Deep South to be a liberal, atheist intellectual. It is not their fault, and they are good people because of what they are, rather than what they are not.

I can't spell and don't care to proofread
Okay, I just remembered that often times when you jokingly bait people, you misspell things intentionally.

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 18:30

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 18:36

I would liem to argue that with you. poverty = poor education not low iq. There are chances someone who is poor (desperately poor) would be ill educated and not be able to read. and then they would be unable to complete an iq test. iq and conditional intelligence are two different things.
No, but they are too closely correlated. You need a special environment for IQ development. It is perfectly possible to be sharp and yet ignorant. Ignorance and stupidity are very different things. But poverty-stricken rural environments tend to produce inhospitable conditions for the development of the mind, and so you reap what you sow. People born into working-class families feature normal intelligence, but rural areas in poor regions tend to be sad exceptions. There is a line, below which high IQ tends to be more or less unattainable (very unlikely). This line is different, depending on each country and the culture of the family.

The really big kick in the teeth is that IQ tests, as I said before, are measures of abstract reasoning - which is the standard measure of intellect. This is severely hampered by the environment of poverty. But let us not jump on the bandwagon that IQ tests are horribly flawed and that they measure too little to be of use. IQ tests correlate very well with all sorts of other legitimate tests measuring cognitive performance.

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 18:39

You are still speaking of educational intelligence though.

Say there are twins born in rural west virginia. One grows up with her poor, alcoholic, parents. The other is adopted by a rich family in boston. Are they both going to be stupid because of where they are born. Or is the education going to make a difference (assuming the one twin gets a good education)

Iq tests are so subjective. I consistently get high scores on one test but on another my score drops ten points. (both legitimate tests). Ridiculous.

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 19:09

Y

Iq tests are so subjective. I consistently get high scores on one test but on another my score drops ten points. (both legitimate tests). Ridiculous.
Yeah, 'cause a teen like you and me definitely knows better than more than a century of scientific observation, experimentation, and gradual improvement :rolleyes:... Look, I make no secret that I dislike anti-intellectualism, whether intentional or semi-accidental. I am not saying that you are being anti-intellectualism here, but statistics show that IQ test correlate very well, and they are therefore still used. If I had a pence/penny (preferably a pence though - they are worth more ~;)) for every anti-IQ test story...

Beskar

02-11-2010, 19:55

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 22:03

I like to inform you "IQ tests on the internet" are not legitimate.

A legitimate IQ test would involve being in an office with a psychologist for a couple-few hours to access your mentals in a long range of area, while they record your performance.

Thank you beskar im not an idiot. I took one for my school and my parents had me given one when i was younger. I do not place any significance on online tests which question whether my intelligence is the same as Albert Einsteins.

I am not saying zero credence should be placed on IQ tests. My sentiments are not anti-intellectual. I think an IQ test is a helpful tool, however, it is NOT a fail-safe. You should not assume everything about a person because they do poorly on a Test.

To finalize, an IQ test is a helpful tool. It is not however the end all be all. As well there are many categories of a IQ test just like any other test. Failing one section of the test does not mean you are stupid by any means.

I want to point out that it is a commonly accepted fact that extreme conditions, biology, and nutritional factors all play a part in determining someones "intelligence". Are people poor because they are stupid? Perhaps but not necessarily. Are stupid because they are poor. Because of certain factors, yes.

Beskar

02-11-2010, 22:09

I want to point out that it is a commonly accepted fact that extreme conditions, biology, and nutritional factors all play a part in determining someones "intelligence". Are people poor because they are stupid? Perhaps but not necessarily. Are stupid because they are poor. Because of certain factors, yes.

Shush, that thinking leads to you to socialism. :wink:

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 22:10

Doesn't mean i have to try to fix it, only acknowledge it, duh :wink:

Hax

02-11-2010, 22:14

I think apathy is worse than ignorance :bow:

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 22:18

What about ignorance through apathy.

Hax

02-11-2010, 22:23

drone

02-11-2010, 22:24

I think apathy is worse than ignorance :bow:

Who cares? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzH8VXlXxNE)

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 22:27

That would mean you don't know because you don't care?

Sounds a bit like the chicken-egg problem to me. However, willing apathy, knowing what is going on and yet not caring or not wanting to care is worse than not knowing because of a lack of information.

?Who says i don't care. Just because my politics seek a different path to correcting the issue than Socialism or Communism does not mena i do not care. You don't have to believe in a workers paradise to care.

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 22:37

I am not saying zero credence should be placed on IQ tests. My sentiments are not anti-intellectual. I think an IQ test is a helpful tool, however, it is NOT a fail-safe. You should not assume everything about a person because they do poorly on a Test.

To finalize, an IQ test is a helpful tool. It is not however the end all be all. As well there are many categories of a IQ test just like any other test. Failing one section of the test does not mean you are stupid by any means.

How much actual data does your conclusion draw from? When I was saying the poor had lower-than-average IQ scores I was drawing on just about every sociology textbook. When you say you do not trust IQ tests, you state your personal opinion, which is, while supported by many upset moms, punctured egos, :tongue: as well as some researchers, is contrary to the general scientific consensus.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-11-2010, 22:54

How much actual data does your conclusion draw from? When I was saying the poor had lower-than-average IQ scores I was drawing on just about every sociology textbook. When you say you do not trust IQ tests, you state your personal opinion, which is, while supported by many upset moms, punctured egos, :tongue: as well as some researchers, is contrary to the general scientific consensus.

His conclusion is "IQ tests are not the end all be all", which is kind of hard to disagree with. Don't you think there's something more to what we call intelligence than is shown on an IQ test?

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 22:54

Are we arguing about the same thing. I don't dispute that the poor have lower iq scores. that is right and accurate. What i am saying is couldn't their scores be higher if they had been raised a different way. Nature vs. Nurture.

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 23:24

His conclusion is "IQ tests are not the end all be all", which is kind of hard to disagree with. Don't you think there's something more to what we call intelligence than is shown on an IQ test?
I know, but I loathe those sorts of arguments, even if they have some truth. Every person dissatisfied/comforting-a-dissatisfied-person with their/their-friend's IQ test says that (not that I accuse Centurion1 of doing such thing of course). Too many times I have heard parents/some kids say things disturbingly similar to what is satirised here in this notable blog (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/22/17-gifted-children/).

Look, for the third time (or is it the fourth?), standard IQ tests measure abstract reasoning. In that, they excel. Whether you choose to say that abstract reasoning is what intelligence is about - well, that is your choice. Think whatever you wish. Abstract reasoning is certainly 'not the end all be all' - this is true. But the IQ tests measure abstract reasoning, and they measure it very well. Abstract reasoning is a skill that poorer children learn slower and less thoroughly due to their lower exposure to all the needed components (found in a psych book).

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 23:44

no im quite satisfied with my iq.

your saying exactly what im saying, peoples iq's are based off of certain outside controllable factors. Which is why poor people average lower iq's than more wealthy people.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-11-2010, 23:59

I know, but I loathe those sorts of arguments, even if they have some truth. Every person dissatisfied/comforting-a-dissatisfied-person with their/their-friend's IQ test says that (not that I accuse Centurion1 of doing such thing of course). Too many times I have heard parents/some kids say things disturbingly similar to what is satirised here in this notable blog (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/22/17-gifted-children/).

Sure, I just got the impression you were lumping cent in there with them, always a hazard when you have a negative association with a certain argument. My bad.

It bugs me too, especially that guy with his "multiple intelligences" theory. Egalitarianism run amock, we love it so much we don't mind if we are being irrational (myself included).

Look, for the third time (or is it the fourth?), standard IQ tests measure abstract reasoning. In that, they excel. Whether you choose to say that abstract reasoning is what intelligence is about - well, that is your choice. Think whatever you wish.

Tch, this is the backroom. We don't get to think whatever we wish, it must be argued.

I think abstract reasoning is very important, but that high IQ people are just as prone to cognitive biases. To actually be smart you need a high IQ, you need to put effort into your thinking, you need education, and you need the willingness to reconsider your own position and realize that you were wrong. Even then, if it's something you are passionate about you will probably not come to a very rational conclusion, if an abrasive and rude person is involved you are less likely to admit the shortcomings of your thinking, and if you don't have the right information your efforts can be futile.

Saying that IQ is to intelligence as height is to basketball ability hits pretty close to the mark I think.

Aemilius Paulus

02-12-2010, 00:11

Which is why poor people average lower iq's than more wealthy people.
Because the psychology and sociology book says so :snobby:. Now quiet, you Curious George! You have questioned this society enough.

CountArach

02-12-2010, 02:22

So how about that religion eh?

Sasaki Kojiro

02-12-2010, 02:24

So how about that religion eh?

I believe atheists have a 1.93 higher IQ on average than agnostics.

Aemilius Paulus

02-12-2010, 02:44

So how about that religion eh?
Nah, I think I'll pass ~;)

Seamus Fermanagh

02-12-2010, 05:02

AP:

Strike's point about this type of data (correlations v causality) is a good one. One of the things we teach in Research Methods is that correlations CANNOT equate causality. At best, they are an indicator of which relationships among variables warrant further study.

As the old example notes, an increase in the number of churches in a community correlates strongly with an increase in the number of prostitutes. Obviously, there is another factor at play.

I also disagree with your summary of religion as "anti-intellectual." You acknowledge that you're generalizing (thanks), but I don't think the explication is that simple or clear cut -- even allowing for your caveat. Conservatism v Liberality of outlook, Rural v Urban cultural dynamics, and quite a few other factors are also at play here.

Aemilius Paulus

02-12-2010, 05:35

Strike's point about this type of data (correlations v causality) is a good one. One of the things we teach in Research Methods is that correlations CANNOT equate causality. At best, they are an indicator of which relationships among variables warrant further study.

Two words make a good point? Supposing the mangled fragments can be arranged into a meaningful message, I still fail to see how that qualifies as what you named it. Important point, perhaps. A good one? Well, you decide. There is nuances to every point. If two simple words had that much unquestionable power, debates would go through and equivalent of gastric bypass...

Right, so poverty does not make a healthy contribution to violence as well as poor education in urban ghettos? One of the things I was taught in the Intro to Sociology class contradicted your point. Nor did I have to take the course - I read the same in textbooks before going into the Uni.

I also disagree with your summary of religion as "anti-intellectual." You acknowledge that you're generalizing (thanks), but I don't think the explication is that simple or clear cut -- even allowing for your caveat. Conservatism v Liberality of outlook, Rural v Urban cultural dynamics, and quite a few other factors are also at play here.
Now when did I say that? In the various places of this thread I made varying points. For instance, I made a point of singling out Southern Baptism as being a poor catalyst for scientific inquiry, but at the same time I praised Catholicism for its contributions to scholasticism. Certain other denominations of Christianity likewise have notable intellectual traditions. I am not even speaking about other religions...

However, at the same time, I did say that on a general basis, the current religions (by that I singled out Judeo-Christian & Islamic belief systems) are anywhere from mildly to heavily antithetical to science. Even on the most basic grounds, I put my trust in Science and Reason, as there is nothing else. A Christian/Muslim/Jew will put it in God. When the decision comes to choose between reason and religion, a true believer must choose religion. There is the anti-intellectualism. I am not speaking of purging the intelligentsia here - anti-intellectualism can be as little as putting faith before reason.

Anyhow, this is not my favoured debate topic, but you are welcome to argue :shrug:

pevergreen

02-12-2010, 08:06

voted other when i meant deist.

didnt know what it meant

Husar

02-12-2010, 13:41

Two words make a good point? Supposing the mangled fragments can be arranged into a meaningful message, I still fail to see how that qualifies as what you named it.

SFTS gives you a hint, assuming that you are clever enough to derive/understand the wider meaning yourself, you should really see it as a compliment that he doesn't explain it to you like you were a baby. ~;)

The Wizard

02-12-2010, 13:58

I believe atheists have a 1.93 higher IQ on average than agnostics.

Malicious lies not serious here

Samurai Waki

02-13-2010, 05:46

I beleive atheists burn 1.93% better than agnostics.

ajaxfetish

02-13-2010, 18:44

Right, so poverty does not make a healthy contribution to violence as well as poor education in urban ghettos? One of the things I was taught in the Intro to Sociology class contradicted your point. Nor did I have to take the course - I read the same in textbooks before going into the Uni.

I don't think SF is suggesting that poverty does not contribute to violence or poor education. I think he's suggesting that correlation alone is not enough to make that argument. Further study may well have shown a causative relationship.

Two words make a good point? Supposing the mangled fragments can be arranged into a meaningful message, I still fail to see how that qualifies as what you named it. Important point, perhaps. A good one? Well, you decide. There is nuances to every point. If two simple words had that much unquestionable power, debates would go through and equivalent of gastric bypass...
It wasn't two words. It was two words connected by an operator. Two words in isolation may not have 'unquestionable power,' but a proposition such as Strike's is a meaningful argument.

When the decision comes to choose between reason and religion, a true believer must choose religion. There is the anti-intellectualism. I am not speaking of purging the intelligentsia here - anti-intellectualism can be as little as putting faith before reason.
For those who believe faith and reason are in harmony, there's no reason to believe that choice will ever arise. Why should religion be anti-intellectual if there is no conflict between faith and science?

Ajax

Fixiwee

02-13-2010, 18:50

"...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer.
I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not
to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation." Noam Chomsky (http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/)

Beskar

02-13-2010, 19:22

It is amazing how atheism is the underdog which causes the theists to bark up the walls.

Furunculus

02-13-2010, 20:00

It is amazing how atheism is the underdog which causes the theists to bark up the walls.

que? i am confused.

Aemilius Paulus

02-13-2010, 20:19

I don't think SF is suggesting that poverty does not contribute to violence or poor education. I think he's suggesting that correlation alone is not enough to make that argument. Further study may well have shown a causative relationship.

Exactly. You do not know what he is saying. You can only assume or presume. That is why I said two words are a pitiful excuse for an argument. Mane (yep, I am imitating Meth...), Strike is like the Bible - he writes vague things and lets others insert their favoured conclusion/explanation - thus making everyone but me happy. Shoot, I envy his wisdom.

That's like a Republican countering a long speech by Obama on universal healthcare with two words 'high taxes'. Yeah, good point, but so what? Anyone, and I mean, anyone, can blurt out a cliché.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-13-2010, 20:28

It is amazing how atheism is the underdog which causes the theists to bark up the walls.

que? i am confused.

As a belief system atheism has an extreme povety of adherents, and the recent increases are, rather like homosxuality, more to do with people being willing to finally come out of the closet than anything else.

The Wizard

02-13-2010, 20:31

AFAIK actually, areligious people form a very large group throughout the West...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-13-2010, 21:15

AFAIK actually, areligious people form a very large group throughout the West...

Not really, the 2005 poll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe showed that only France and the Low Countries have large numbers of atheists, and even France polls less atheists than theists. The only countries that actually poll more atheists than theists were the Czech Republic and Estonia; both former Warsar Pact countries.

So....

No, atheists do not make up "a very large" proportion of the European population.

Beskar

02-13-2010, 21:15

As a belief system atheism has an extreme povety of adherents, and the recent increases are, rather like homosxuality, more to do with people being willing to finally come out of the closet than anything else.

Basically, atheists are demobilised and generally do not actively "presue their faith" as some one religious might do. Also in the same light, atheists are generally apathetic and simply shrug soldiers on the religious issue, and many of these just write down their faith as baptist/catholic/etc (in the UK at least) of where they were simply baptised expressing or acting on any belief they have themselves.

The "Rise in Atheism" is akin to people coming out of the closet when homosexual. Homosexuality was really a backdoor movement (no pun intended) untill people started to go on "Gaypride" marches in the street, freely shouting "I am gay!! I can say I am gay! I am free to be gay!!" as a liberating moment. The recent rises for atheism are mobilising elements such as Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion", this attracted those atheists to it as a beacon, and by-proxy giving them a voice.

This lead to a more vocal and overt atheist attitude in many areas. What used to be the threat to the church a decade or so ago was the rise of apathy, now combined with this, there is an overt atheist stance being formed. In areas such as the USA, which is typically far more religious than us European counter-parts, this lead to instances where you would find in religion threads (especially youtube videos) where atheists and theists clash over ideology and even before Dawkins, during the rise of accepted atheist as a mainstream stance, the church was actively attacking the position. I remember many arguments from my childhood where churches would actively say things like "Without God, they are nothing", "They will burn in hell", "etc

What is interesting development, also what some argue is a "resurgence of faith" is as we know, Science especially over the last 200 years has progressed a lot. There are many theories and explanations to a majority of things, one of the key ones is Darwin's Evolution theory. What is key about this, is that it directly attacks incidences such as the creation theory. Due to Mass Communication, we are also far more enlightened than our counterparts in that we know of and have access to many religious theories which in the past, were simply unknown or heard of, in a day and age where "everyone was christian, everyone goes to church, etc".

The "resurgence of faith" is due to polarisation of views due to emergence of atheism mainstream. instead of bracing concepts held by Science, or from other sources, a lot of christians have become far more radical in their beliefs, so instead of accepting and adapting, they did the opposite, they dismiss science as godless and evil, they go back to a fundamentalist state. They see it as a threat against religion, something to be crushed, destroyed, manulipatied, etc. This also has led to attack on atheism as a concept, opposed to just attacking "godless" as a whole, using many sources, such as the bible to back up their claim. This has also led to the increase in the normal of overt atheists, as always being supressed by the church, their increase in understanding of the world know that many of what these hard-line theists say is simply false. This is further increased due to the internet and due to where many backwards parts of the world have concepts such as 'atheism = illegal' and these increasingly joining in the fight against atheism.

As many statistics will agree with me, the number of theists outnumber the atheists (like this poll does, though I am surprised at the number of those who selected atheist). However, such as the London bus adverts which simply said "There's probably no God", "Please Don't Label Me" there was a huge outcry made about this from the theists. There was a very large outcry over the book "The God Delusion" by theists, etc (hence my earlier statement).

http://yfrog.com/1acardiffmerthyrroadj
http://yfrog.com/12dsc0019dmj

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-13-2010, 21:22

It hurt too much just to agree with me, didn't it Beskar?

Beskar

02-13-2010, 21:26

It hurt too much just to agree with me, didn't it Beskar?

Quite contrary. It must have hurt for you to agree with me, as I said it first. :beam:

Aemilius Paulus

02-13-2010, 22:01

No, atheists do not make up "a very large" proportion of the European population.
With theists like you mentioned, PVC, who needs atheists?

ajaxfetish

02-13-2010, 23:49

Exactly. You do not know what he is saying. You can only assume or presume. That is why I said two words are a pitiful excuse for an argument. Mane (yep, I am imitating Meth...), Strike is like the Bible - he writes vague things and lets others insert their favoured conclusion/explanation - thus making everyone but me happy. Shoot, I envy his wisdom.

That's like a Republican countering a long speech by Obama on universal healthcare with two words 'high taxes'. Yeah, good point, but so what? Anyone, and I mean, anyone, can blurt out a cliché.

The part of my post you quoted was about SF (Seamus Fermanagh), not Strike. I conveyed what I 'think' he was saying, as you seemed to be assuming he was saying something else which seemed unwarranted to me. What Strike was saying was quite clear, no presumption necessary.

Ajax

Louis VI the Fat

02-14-2010, 00:04

As a belief system atheism has an extreme povety of adherentsAtheism is not a belief system. It is the absense of a belief system.

I have no belief in common with other atheists, no more than you as a Christian share your belief with Scientology members, simply by virtue of not believing in Hindu god Shiva.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-14-2010, 01:01

Atheism is not a belief system. It is the absense of a belief system.

I have no belief in common with other atheists, no more than you as a Christian share your belief with Scientology members, simply by virtue of not believing in Hindu god Shiva.

Louis, you are far too intelligent to believe this. Atheists in Europe are as homogenous as Christians; the details may be different but the core beliefs are the same. In common you have a distrust of religion and the religious, a belief in Reason and Science as being incompatable with theism, and a hyper-secular attitude to government.

Kralizec

02-14-2010, 14:22

As a belief system atheism has an extreme povety of adherents, and the recent increases are, rather like homosxuality, more to do with people being willing to finally come out of the closet than anything else.

Well, you're free to dismiss 18% as an insignificant minority, of course :inquisitive:

In common you have a distrust of religion and the religious, a belief in Reason and Science as being incompatable with theism, and a hyper-secular attitude to government.

Not really...while some/many are indeed against continuous attempts by religious people to get their religion accomodated by the state and to enforce their values and biases in the socio-political sphere, just as many if not more are indifferent to religion in general.

Really, there's nothing that all atheists have in common except atheism as such...and of course our wickedly cool atheist handshake.

Beskar

02-14-2010, 17:15

Really, there's nothing that all atheists have in common except atheism as such...and of course our wickedly cool atheist handshake.

And our cool slogan'd t-shirts.

"Atheism is a non-prophet organization" :beam:

"I Believe in Life before Death"

"We got the fossils. We win."

"Just another:
Godles Amoral Arrgoant Depraved Devil-worshipping Baby--killing Hedonistic Paganistic Angry Evil Unnatural Freedom-hating
Atheist!"

"BELIEVE"

"READ IT
before you BELIEVE it"

etc

Aemilius Paulus

02-14-2010, 18:18

Skullheadhq is a Christian? Is that some sort of a joke? :inquisitive::dizzy2:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-14-2010, 18:55

Well, you're free to dismiss 18% as an insignificant minority, of course :inquisitive:

Not really...while some/many are indeed against continuous attempts by religious people to get their religion accomodated by the state and to enforce their values and biases in the socio-political sphere, just as many if not more are indifferent to religion in general.

Really, there's nothing that all atheists have in common except atheism as such...and of course our wickedly cool atheist handshake.

18% is a very small number given the media and intellectual bias in much of the West.

As far as not believing the same things, atheists believe there is no supernatural, which is a very fundamental statement about the universe on a par with "There is a loving God". The self-identifying atheists on this forum are far more vocal than any of the religious groups about opposing the beliefs of others; as evidenced by the numbers of my regular interlocutors.

The Wizard

02-14-2010, 19:11

Not really, the 2005 poll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe showed that only France and the Low Countries have large numbers of atheists, and even France polls less atheists than theists. The only countries that actually poll more atheists than theists were the Czech Republic and Estonia; both former Warsar Pact countries.

So....

No, atheists do not make up "a very large" proportion of the European population.

You base yourself on the Eurobarometer poll, with its extremely vague set of questions ("spirit or life force"... what?). You would get totally different results with different questions, which makes such a poll very suspect. I mean really dude, compare the Eurobarometer to the Gallup poll's results in the same article and the problem becomes clear right away.

Also, note that I said "a very large group", out of which you made "a very large proportion", which means something different. In my book, if more than a third of any country's population is areligious (which, moreover, is a term that includes a lot more than atheism, so again please don't take my words out of context), that's a very large group, considering the fact that such vast numbers of areligiosity are unprecedented in all of human history.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-14-2010, 19:23

You base yourself on the Eurobarometer poll, with its extremely vague set of questions ("spirit or life force"... what?). You would get totally different results with different questions, which makes such a poll very suspect. I mean really dude, compare the Eurobarometer to the Gallup poll's results in the same article and the problem becomes clear right away.

Also, note that I said "a very large group", out of which you made "a very large proportion", which means something different. In my book, if more than a third of any country's population is areligious (which, moreover, is a term that includes a lot more than atheism, so again please don't take my words out of context), that's a very large group, considering the fact that such vast numbers of areligiosity are unprecedented in all of human history.

Try ancient Rome for areligious. Historically most people have a very vague idea about spirituality and the afterlife; they go with whatever the elite decide. What is almost unprecedented is the departure between the elite and the masses in terms of religion. Increasingly the European elite is amoral, relativistic and atheistic. It believes in nothing, save the mechanics of Science and Logic. By contrast, the masses continue to have the same vague, quasi-spiritual, relationship with the world around them.

The Wizard

02-14-2010, 19:42

Ancient Rome was anything but areligious, buddy. Before the modern era there simply wasn't any room for abandoning the idea of god(s) altogether, except amongst some isolated, well-off philosophers.

Once again, you assert that being areligious (i.e. not having a god, which means you can be anything from ignostic to atheistic to apathetic and back again) means you're amoral. That is quite a disgusting point of view to hold, friend. Thanks for calling me that. Me and all the other people here who happen to lack a religion.

In any case, you failed to reply to my comments on the validity of the Eurobarometer poll. Instead you merely assert that "the masses" in Europe are still "vaguely quasi-spiritual (sic)" (ah, so now they aren't theistic anymore are they?), without backing such a statement up. One look at a clearer poll with better questions like the Gallup one, and the continually dropping church attendance and membership rates across the West will cast doubt on any claim that (organized) religion isn't dying here, or that being areligious means you're part of a tiny minority.

Centurion1

02-14-2010, 19:47

Ancient Rome was anything but areligious, buddy. Before the modern era there simply wasn't any room for abandoning the idea of god(s) altogether, except amongst some isolated, well-off philosophers.

Once again, you assert that being areligious (i.e. not having a god, which means you can be anything from ignostic to atheistic to apathetic and back again) means you're amoral. That is quite a disgusting point of view to hold, friend. Thanks for calling me that. Me and all the other people here who happen to lack a religion.

I think PVC is implying that the rich and powerful people in society are often areligious and Rome is merely an example for something that very commonly occurs. Honestly, I can't argue with him. I guarantee half the powerful people in history we think of areligious were probably putting on a show. As to being amoral i don't think he intended it to come out the way it did.

Louis VI the Fat

02-14-2010, 19:51

18% is a very small number given the media and intellectual bias in much of the West.18% is the number of outspoekn atheists. Not the number of non-Christians or non-believers.
Some 18% is Christian in most of North, West, and Eastern Europe. You see churches from up close on a regular basis, don't you? How many people under the age of 65 do you see? How many Westerners, how many men?
Christianity is all but gone in Northwest Europe, save for rural areas, and the old, sick, and non-Westerners. What remains, is some vague notion of spirituality that holds the mass in between in its grip.

Also, there is no intellectual bias against vague notions of spirituality, no more than there is a bias against a vague notion of faith healing medicine or flat earths.

The intellectual elite is there to lead, not to stoop down to the level of the lowest common denominator. A doctor tells you that homeopathy has no basis in science. An engineer tells you that carpets don't fly, and aeroplanes do. Geologists tell that the earth is not flat. Such is the task of the educated elite.
What we are witnessing, is a crisis in authority. From politics to doctors to scientists, the masses consider their own knowledge on par with those of the professionals.

Centurion1

02-14-2010, 19:57

The intellectual elite is there to lead, not to stoop down to the level of the lowest common denominator. A doctor tells you that homeopathy has no basis in science. An engineer tells you that carpets don't fly, and aeroplanes do. Geologists tell that the earth is not flat. Such is the task of the educated elite.
What we are witnessing, is a crisis in authority. From politics to doctors to scientists, the masses consider their own knowledge on par with those of the professionals.

That is a very snobbish elitist tone which makes out as all religious are imbeciles and its the job of the oh so intelligent elite to lead us. no thanks you can keep your elitism ill keep my god and guns.

The Wizard

02-14-2010, 19:58

I think PVC is implying that the rich and powerful people in society are often areligious and Rome is merely an example for something that very commonly occurs. Honestly, I can't argue with him. I guarantee half the powerful people in history we think of areligious were probably putting on a show. As to being amoral i don't think he intended it to come out the way it did.

No offense, but I can't quite make sense of your post. First you say you think ancient elites were areligious (tell that to the kings of Babylon or the pontifex maximus in Rome...) then you say they're putting on a show? :dizzy2: Maybe you meant to write "as religious" instead of "areligious"?

Centurion1

02-14-2010, 20:00

Sorry i meant that those putting on a show of being religious when they really weren't.

I can give you plenty of popes names who were simple political animals and could care less about being in with god. And i'm catholic.

The Wizard

02-14-2010, 20:02

As said, elites. Tiny, tiny elites, like those ancient Greek philosophers who rejected the idea of gods. The masses remained deeply religious. There was no chance in Hell a large portion of the population of a pre-modern society would have become areligious. That is why I said the numbers we see today (up to 90%) are absolutely unprecedented.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-14-2010, 20:18

Ancient Rome was anything but areligious, buddy. Before the modern era there simply wasn't any room for abandoning the idea of god(s) altogether, except amongst some isolated, well-off philosophers.

I dissagree, Rome was areligious in the sense you mean, in that there was no real hold which any one religion had, and that most public religion was mostly for show. Until Christianity took over Rome was a city of apaphy really. The glut of Eastern cults (much like the modern rise of Islam) were a symptom of the general disregard for the traditional forms of religion, which by the Second Century AD fe took seriously. Look at Stoicism or Epicuranism, too of the most popular philosophical schools in Rome, both atheistic; or at best Deistic.

Once again, you assert that being areligious (i.e. not having a god, which means you can be anything from ignostic to atheistic to apathetic and back again) means you're amoral. That is quite a disgusting point of view to hold, friend. Thanks for calling me that. Me and all the other people here who happen to lack a religion.

Nope, I didn't link the two; I merely stated that the European Elite was both. I have said repeatedly that the two are not linked, and I would thank you to stop inflicting your prejudices against Christians on me. If anything, the elite are atheistic because they are amoral and relativistic, not vice versa.

In any case, you failed to reply to my comments on the validity of the Eurobarometer poll. Instead you merely assert that "the masses" in Europe are still "vaguely quasi-spiritual (sic)" (ah, so now they aren't theistic anymore are they?), without backing such a statement up. One look at a clearer poll with better questions like the Gallup one, and the continually dropping church attendance and membership rates across the West will cast doubt on any claim that (organized) religion isn't dying here, or that being areligious means you're part of a tiny minority.

Theism is an extremely vague term, at root it indicates a belief, so I haven't changed my position. If you had read the medieval priest's manuals that I have you would know that, in general, only a very small proportion of a congregation had a firm grasp of Catholic doctrine. If anything the numbers of "quality" believers have risen massively over the last 100 years or so.

As said, elites. Tiny, tiny elites, like those ancient Greek philosophers who rejected the idea of gods.

The same elites as today, really. Bear in mind, most of those philosophers, Plato, Xenophon, Aristole etc. were very well connected politically.

The masses remained deeply religious. There was no chance in Hell a large portion of the population of a pre-modern society would have become areligious. That is why I said the numbers we see today (up to 90%) are absolutely unprecedented.

Do you know anything abour pre-modern religion? About the contractural forms of non-salvationary religion, or the small uptake in salvatory religion prior to Constantine?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-14-2010, 20:36

18% is the number of outspoekn atheists. Not the number of non-Christians or non-believers.

I'm only talking about atheists.

Some 18% is Christian in most of North, West, and Eastern Europe.

Surely the West includes Spain? Still largely and enthusiastically Roman Catholic. In any case, 18% is just the number that attend Church regularly, so it doesn't include people like me in various stages of spiritual recovery after being savaged by an atheistic school-system.

You see churches from up close on a regular basis, don't you? How many people under the age of 65 do you see? How many Westerners, how many men?

Lots, especially at Christmas an Easter, a very good cross section of local people. The Christmas Eve before last I could not get into the Cathedral because it would have breached fire regulations.

Christianity is all but gone in Northwest Europe, save for rural areas, and the old, sick, and non-Westerners. What remains, is some vague notion of spirituality that holds the mass in between in its grip.

....and the young, and educated, finally our from under their parents thumbs.... The largest scoiety at the University of Exeter is the Evangelical Christian Union, despite their ructions with the University. Google them, they aren't exactly wholesome at the upper echelons. Their mid-day lunch bars fill the audatorium, though.

Also, there is no intellectual bias against vague notions of spirituality, no more than there is a bias against a vague notion of faith healing medicine or flat earths.

So, a definite opposition, then?

The intellectual elite is there to lead, not to stoop down to the level of the lowest common denominator. A doctor tells you that homeopathy has no basis in science. An engineer tells you that carpets don't fly, and aeroplanes do. Geologists tell that the earth is not flat. Such is the task of the educated elite.
What we are witnessing, is a crisis in authority. From politics to doctors to scientists, the masses consider their own knowledge on par with those of the professionals.

The ability of your culture to justify the replacement of onwe aristocracy with another, time after time, does not cease to amaze me.

The crisis of authority is due to the shunning of a class of expert as well educated as the engineer, the geologist, and perhaps even the doctor. Find a replacement for the priest and the Bishop and you will have fewer problems with your peasants.

Beskar

02-14-2010, 20:39

The Wizard

02-14-2010, 20:41

I dissagree, Rome was areligious in the sense you mean, in that there was no real hold which any one religion had, and that most public religion was mostly for show. Until Christianity took over Rome was a city of apaphy really. The glut of Eastern cults (much like the modern rise of Islam) were a symptom of the general disregard for the traditional forms of religion, which by the Second Century AD fe took seriously. Look at Stoicism or Epicuranism, too of the most popular philosophical schools in Rome, both atheistic; or at best Deistic.

What exactly is areligious about the continuing and widespread worship of thousands upon thousands of deities? Just because they weren't part of the imperial cult doesn't mean Roman society was areligious. These people worshiped gods and did so quite dedicatedly, if in a way alien to Christian practice today. Why, taking your argument to its logical conclusion would indicate Hinduism is areligious (if India had a state religion, that is). Who would make such a claim?

Nope, I didn't link the two; I merely stated that the European Elite was both. I have said repeatedly that the two are not linked, and I would thank you to stop inflicting your prejudices against Christians on me. If anything, the elite are atheistic because they are amoral and relativistic, not vice versa.

What prejudices against Christians? Where did I attach what I have seen in your comments to Christians in general? And perhaps you should qualify your remarks some more, because putting amoral in the same line of adjectives as atheistic will very rapidly make you look like you're connecting the two, obviously.

Theism is an extremely vague term, at root it indicates a belief, so I haven't changed my position. If you had read the medieval priest's manuals that I have you would know that, in general, only a very small proportion of a congregation had a firm grasp of Catholic doctrine. If anything the numbers of "quality" believers have risen massively over the last 100 years or so.

the⋅ism /ˈθiɪzəm/ [thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation.
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods.

No-one sacrificing to Jupiter or taking part in the Bacchanalia likely rejected such ideas. I suggest you read up on your history.

The same elites as today, really. Bear in mind, most of those philosophers, Plato, Xenophon, Aristole etc. were very well connected politically.

Doesn't matter. Those elites were extremely tiny compared to the great mass of the population that was deeply devoted to the many cults of our ancestors. In fact, I'd wager a large portion of the elites were, too.

Do you know anything abour pre-modern religion? About the contractural forms of non-salvationary religion, or the small uptake in salvatory religion prior to Constantine?

Not enough, apparently, to know the terms you're using. But enough to know that a lack of belief altogether was impossible in pre-modern societies. People simply lacked the time, the resources and the education to contemplate matters and to doubt the words of priests. The closest you could get to widespread areligious sentiment in pre-modern society would be ancestor worship and related belief systems as seen in ancient Chinese religion. But that can hardly be called areligious, since it was still clearly religious in nature.

Oh, and to comment on your debate with Louis: organized religion is dying in the West, there's no way to get around it. Just because people like to go to church once or twice a year during major events doesn't change anything about that.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-14-2010, 21:09

What exactly is areligious about the continuing and widespread worship of thousands upon thousands of deities?

It wasn't religion as you or I understand it. For starters, it wasn't metaphysical or spiritual. With the exception of cults like Isis, Mitrhas, and Orpheus, worship of the Gods was about repriscosity. That means, you pray to them and they are obligated to reward you.

Just because they weren't part of the imperial cult doesn't mean Roman society was areligious.

The Imperial Cult is an excellent example of forms over actual belief. Vespasian's last words according to Suetonius? "Oh, I do believe I'm becoming a God" (i.e. dieing).

These people worshiped gods and did so quite dedicatedly, if in a way alien to Christian practice today. Why, taking your argument to its logical conclusion would indicate Hinduism is areligious (if India had a state religion, that is). Who would make such a claim?

Hinduism is somewhat different to Roman religion because of the way it involves betterment and regeneration, but the argument can still be made that it's nothing more than an excuse for kicking the Dalits.

What prejudices against Christians? Where did I attach what I have seen in your comments to Christians in general? And perhaps you should qualify your remarks some more, because putting amoral in the same line of adjectives as atheistic will very rapidly make you look like you're connecting the two, obviously.

You have attached to me the prejudice that Christians believe they are the only people who are moral; that is not something I have ever said. You see in my comments something that only one other person has accused me of in about 4 years on these forums.

the⋅ism /ˈθiɪzəm/ [thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation.
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods.

No-one sacrificing to Jupiter or taking part in the Bacchanalia likely rejected such ideas. I suggest you read up on your history.

From whence does this definition come? It's backwards, in any case the second (proper) definition is extremely vague.

Doesn't matter. Those elites were extremely tiny compared to the great mass of the population that was deeply devoted to the many cults of our ancestors. In fact, I'd wager a large portion of the elites were, too.

Well.... many modern elites are still quite religious. So I fail to see your point.

Not enough, apparently, to know the terms you're using. But enough to know that a lack of belief altogether was impossible in pre-modern societies. People simply lacked the time, the resources and the education to contemplate matters and to doubt the words of priests.

This reamins true today, the people pontificating on this forum are either the young and callow or the intellectual elite; no one else has the time or compunction.

Oh, and to comment on your debate with Louis: organized religion is dying in the West, there's no way to get around it. Just because people like to go to church once or twice a year during major events doesn't change anything about that.

That's a nice belief to have, but the same churches were virtually empty 20 years ago. Taking the long view, religion began to recline after two brutal wars in Europe wiped out most of two generations. No one came through that unscathed and people passed on their distrust of any ideology or strong philosophical stance (as well as their pesismism) to their children. The Holocaust didn't help.

Decline continued well into the '80's and early '90's, but around ther turn of the millenium it appears to have stopped.

As you point out, for the majority of human history the vast majority of people have had some sort of religion. To suggest this is for any reason other than because they wanted one is foolhardy, the masses have rarely been so oppressed. After the last War atheism and Reason had a go at displacing religion; they failed and succeeded only in fracturing certain parts of society and leaving the ground open for ingorance and fundamentalism.

HoreTore

02-14-2010, 21:31

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-14-2010, 21:33

What the last decades of atheism has succeeded in, Philipvs, is to remove the christian influences from our laws. As Christianity has lost its grip on our part of the world, there is no denying that we have gained a lot more freedom. Women are now just as welcome in the workforce as men are, homosexuals are respected instead of jailed, freedom of speech is stronger, the list goes on.

...basic civil liberties are infringed, freedom of speech is curtailed, politics is increasingly amoral....

For the sake of Gay pride and Women's lib we've lost a lot too.

HoreTore

02-14-2010, 21:42

...basic civil liberties are infringed, freedom of speech is curtailed, politics is increasingly amoral....

For the sake of Gay pride and Women's lib we've lost a lot too.

Are they now....?

yes, yes, we have our PATRIOT acts. But back in the 50's, we had our Franco's, our McCarthyism, our blasphemy trials... No, there's been a very sharp increase of freedoms these last decades, and I don't think it's a coincidence that christianity has lost its hold on society during those same decades.

The Wizard

02-14-2010, 21:49

...basic civil liberties are infringed, freedom of speech is curtailed, politics is increasingly amoral....

Yes, this was never the case under noble Christian governments, or before the '60s broke the back of organized religion. Oh, wait ~:doh:

It wasn't religion as you or I understand it. For starters, it wasn't metaphysical or spiritual. With the exception of cults like Isis, Mitrhas, and Orpheus, worship of the Gods was about repriscosity. That means, you pray to them and they are obligated to reward you.

The nature of the beastie is completely beside the point. It was religion and you are admitting that. Good.

The Imperial Cult is an excellent example of forms over actual belief. Vespasian's last words according to Suetonius? "Oh, I do believe I'm becoming a God" (i.e. dieing).

Which was what I was saying. Just because the imperial cult was a façade doesn't mean the vast majority of Romans wasn't religious.

Hinduism is somewhat different to Roman religion because of the way it involves betterment and regeneration, but the argument can still be made that it's nothing more than an excuse for kicking the Dalits.

Yeah... but by what kind of person I leave open to speculation.

From whence does this definition come? It's backwards, in any case the second (proper) definition is extremely vague.

Why, a dictionary, obviously. What's backwards about defining theism as belief in a god or gods?

Well.... many modern elites are still quite religious. So I fail to see your point.

I'm pleased we agree, then. If modern elites are still to an extent religious (which goes directly against your previous argument that the elites weren't religious at all, interestingly enough), then imagine how it was before the modern era. And that's just the elite we're talking about!

This reamins true today, the people pontificating on this forum are either the young and callow or the intellectual elite; no one else has the time or compunction.

What brings you to dismiss in between one fifth and 80% of society as "no one"? :inquisitive: Besides, were that even the case (which, seeing the numbers, it is not), it still leaves the fact that before the modern age people definitely had no time whatsoever.

That's a nice belief to have, but the same churches were virtually empty 20 years ago. Taking the long view, religion began to recline after two brutal wars in Europe wiped out most of two generations. No one came through that unscathed and people passed on their distrust of any ideology or strong philosophical stance (as well as their pesismism) to their children. The Holocaust didn't help.

Decline continued well into the '80's and early '90's, but around ther turn of the millenium it appears to have stopped.

Thousands of churches continue to close each year and church attendance and membership continues to drop like a stone, even in the United States. By the by, the death of organized religion began during the great wave of democratization and liberalization begun in the '60s. Before that, all you had were, in some countries, anticlerical movements (like in Belgium or France). Our societies were overwhelmingly religious, with all the negative consequences that entailed (such as intense social control and little personal freedom).

As you point out, for the majority of human history the vast majority of people have had some sort of religion.

So I take it this means you take back your earlier statement that there were widespread instances of irreligion/areligiosity before modernity?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-14-2010, 22:13

Yes, this was never the case under noble Christian governments, or before the '60s broke the back of organized religion. Oh, wait ~:doh:

I didn't say that, but I fail to see the advance in trading one kind of oppression for another.

The nature of the beastie is completely beside the point. It was religion and you are admitting that. Good.

actually, it's exactly the point. Before Constantine state religion was non-salvatory, and basically the equivilent of having a lucky rabbit's foot. How many of your modern "areligious" people who are not atheists are still superstitious? If you look at medieval Christians you would see they are also more "superstitious" than what you or I understand as "religious".

Modern religion speaks to a spiritual need, not a practical one; this has always been the case with Christianity in particular.

Which was what I was saying. Just because the imperial cult was a façade doesn't mean the vast majority of Romans wasn't religious.

They were superstitious, not religious. The multiplicity of Gods served a practical rather than a moral or spiritual purpose. The number of people who were religious in the modern sense was probably lower than today, percentage-wise, if anything.

Yeah... but by what kind of person I leave open to speculation.

Well, I say it has been so used in the past.

Why, a dictionary, obviously. What's backwards about defining theism as belief in a god or gods?

Backwards in that definition 2 should have been definition 1. As to where is came from "a dictionary" means nothing. Dictionary of Englich? Of Philosophy? Of Theology?

I'm pleased we agree, then. If modern elites are still to an extent religious (which goes directly against your previous argument that the elites weren't religious at all, interestingly enough), then imagine how it was before the modern era. And that's just the elite we're talking about!

Broadly speaking the modern elite are, I believe, as I first described them. One only has to look at the corruption and lack of direction in the EU to see this. However, saying that a "tiny, tiny" number were irreligious in the past is as relevent as saying a tiny, tiny number are religious today. The point is that this elite is not the first elite to be this way.

What brings you to dismiss in between one fifth and 80% of society as "no one"? :inquisitive: Besides, were that even the case (which, seeing the numbers, it is not), it still leaves the fact that before the modern age people definitely had no time whatsoever.

80%? 80% are what, not sure what's out there? That's pretty understandable when the 10-20% with the time to ponder the question mostly don't bother.

Thousands of churches continue to close each year and church attendance and membership continues to drop like a stone, even in the United States. By the by, the death of organized religion began during the great wave of democratization and liberalization begun in the '60s. Before that, all you had were, in some countries, anticlerical movements (like in Belgium or France). Our societies were overwhelmingly religious, with all the negative consequences that entailed (such as intense social control and little personal freedom).

Maybe I'm biased because my country has been more religiously liberal for longer. Regardless, we have one or two new Churches open each year in this city, and I have yet to see one close.

So I take it this means you take back your earlier statement that there were widespread instances of irreligion/areligiosity before modernity?

No, because this is not the first period of "irreligion" as you term it, and it's as likely to last as the others. I would have thought it was apparent that all previous periods of secularism failed spectacularly.

Centurion1

02-14-2010, 22:20

I bet god is glad to know that you rank him in the same importance as killing your fellow man.

So much for "love your neighbour".

I'm sure God appreciates the fact that i acknowledge his existence and do not believe others who believe him are unintelligent and misinformed, not to mention incapable of understanding science and reason.

Plus the comment was simple US political rhetoric.

Louis VI the Fat

02-14-2010, 23:38

That is a very snobbish elitist tone which makes out as all religious are imbeciles and its the job of the oh so intelligent elite to lead us. no thanks you can keep your elitism ill keep my god and guns.You can keep your guns, plus all of your gods, chant healing and talking bushes.

In return, I want my right to snobbishly look down on the anti-intellectualism that is sweeping our societies. Not all statements are equal. The refusal to consider all statements equal is not bias, but the very task of the elites - whatever their subject.

Even faith is subject to a crisis in authority. Me, I'd rather people listened to a priest than their Tibetan chant healer. The church is mistrusted for very much the same reasons as the politician, the doctor, or the biologist.
I am waiting for the day passengers in an airplane will demand a referendum about how to land the plane, insisting the pilot is an elitist snob: 'who are you to assume you know better, eh? Think you are better than us?'

Centurion1

02-15-2010, 00:22

Maybe if he said with a sneer, it does't matter what we are doing im more intelligent than you by the simple fact i went to flight school.

Rhyfelwyr

02-15-2010, 00:36

I think people sometimes struggle to shake off the modern world view when viewing the world of the past.

For a start, there is this idea that organised religion was somehow a brutal source of social oppression. When they see a hierarhical church and a flock of simple followers, they presume the church elite must rule govern the peoples' lives, as if twelfth century England was somehow capable of the same levels of socia control as the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. As PVC said, people in medieval times and before were simply supersitious. How could they know anything about Christianity when the services weren't even in a language they could understand?! Nope, Christianity in this time did not govern the peoples' every move. Heck, church attendance was pretty low until the early modern era,

Christianity didn't come to play any sort of serious role in the lives of the ordinary peasant (besides a few quasi-pagan festivals) until maybe the sixteenth century. It's not a coincidence that this is the time when the Reformation kicks off, as soon as the feudal order is breaking down, and new classes are emerging in the urban centres. It was these classes that made religion the social force we know it to be today. It was only after the Reformation that the ordinary person became aware of what the Bible taught, and as a result (alongside other factors) we start to see the rise of a more puritanical form of religion that really influences the lives of the ordinary person.

And this brings me on to the other point people misapply due to their modern biases - this rise in religion was far from being directed by elites, but at the same time it wasn't anti-intellectual. The elites were the old Catholic nobles who wanted to keep their subjects stupid and superstitious (except the Jesuits.. but don't get me started on the Jesuits!), whereas it was the rising class of artisans, merchants, and lower gentry that brought a much more strict and life-governing form of reliigon, more the kind we know today.

But just because they weren't the elites doesn't mean they were anti-intellectual, far from it. Instead, there was an almost populist idea of educating the masses - giving them the word and lifting them out of their superstitious and oppressed state. And this is why you have your ordinary peasant Scot reading advanced theology on par with anything of the enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century. Although I'll admit, that's a far cry from the situation today where fundamentalists spend their time looking up YEC vidoes on youtube.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2010, 00:52

Kralizec

02-15-2010, 01:10

Broadly speaking the modern elite are, I believe, as I first described them. One only has to look at the corruption and lack of direction in the EU to see this.

Surely this is a textbook example of the True Scotsman fallacy. If a politician is corrupt, he's obviously not a real christian :laugh3:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2010, 01:24

Surely this is a textbook example of the True Scotsman fallacy. If a politician is corrupt, he's obviously not a real christian :laugh3:

Oh come on, if I said, "no true pacifist would kill someone", you wouldn't argue. No one obedient to God's Will is corrupt; definately.

Whether there's such a thing as "a good Christian" is another question entirely.

Centurion1

02-15-2010, 01:28

Whether there's such a thing as "a good Christian" is another question entirely.

far too subjective to be sure.

i for one am not a perfect christian and probably won't be. but in most ways i try and hope that god will understand.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2010, 01:33

far too subjective to be sure.

i for one am not a perfect christian and probably won't be. but in most ways i try and hope that god will understand.

Ditto, and if he sticks me downstairs I'll role with it.

Centurion1

02-15-2010, 02:02

Ditto, and if he sticks me downstairs I'll role with it.

and that sentiment is probably why WE won't be in the basement.

Trust, Hope, and Faith is what we got

Hax

02-15-2010, 02:17

and that sentiment is probably why WE won't be in the basement.

*sigh*

You'd think after nearly 2,000 years we would have outgrown the condemning of fellow human beings.

It's like playing golf, but on a religious green.

Centurion1

02-15-2010, 02:20

What we will accept how God will judge us.......

if your religion (buddhism) is right than i won't complain than either.

in the gandhi thread early on i said what i believed. all religions are just different paths to the same ultimate reality. as a buddhist im sure you can appreciate the concept.

by the way what kind of buddhist are you, vajrayana, theraveda, zen (lol)

oh you mean the capitalized WE, i was referring to biblical pharisees. :wink:

Strike For The South

02-15-2010, 02:21

*sigh*

You'd think after nearly 2,000 years we would have outgrown the condemning of fellow human beings.

It's like playing golf, but on a religious green.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....I wish something like that was in the bible

Beskar

02-15-2010, 02:38

Oh come on, if I said, "no true pacifist would kill someone", you wouldn't argue. No one obedient to God's Will is corrupt; definately.

Depends on your definition of corrupt. That fact you are christian could mean the central tenet to why you are doing a corrupt action. So while you are arguably still a good christian, your actions depending on context could be corrupt in politics.

Though if I am entirely honest, I don't like the use of "true scotmans fallacy" on these forums, it is generally used out of content by opponents. Your example of a "good christian" is basically following what it is to be a good christian, so saying some one regularly goes against what it is to be a 'good christiian' means they are not a 'good christian'. Makes sense doesn't it?

Hax

02-15-2010, 02:40

by the way what kind of buddhist are you, vajrayana, theraveda, zen (lol)

Vajrayana/Tantrayana, Koyasan Shingon-shu, founded in 827, I think. Like all Vajrayana sects, it's esoteric but is distinctly different due to the fact that the founder (Kukai, or O-Daishi-sama) said that everyone can become a Buddha in this lifetime.

in the gandhi thread early on i said what i believed. all religions are just different paths to the same ultimate reality. as a buddhist im sure you can appreciate the concept.

Basically, yes.

Centurion1

02-15-2010, 02:43

ah very interesting i really like buddhism and think alot of it could be adopted by the world. but i like meat far too much.

(honeslty i wish christianity practiced reincarnation)

see we aren't that different. :laugh:

HoreTore

02-15-2010, 08:20

I didn't say that, but I fail to see the advance in trading one kind of oppression for another.

Trading one kind of oppression for another isn't an advance, that's why we haven't done that, but instead simply removed the christian oppression and not replace with a similar oppression; all of our "oppressions" today pales in comparison to those of the past. And the worst oppressions of today, like the PATRIOT act, was instituted by.... Oh yeah that's right, the christian right.

Oh come on, if I said, "no true pacifist would kill someone", you wouldn't argue. No one obedient to God's Will is corrupt; definately.

Whether there's such a thing as "a good Christian" is another question entirely.

Not to you, no, as you believe that the christian god is a good one. It won't apply to someone who does not believe that the christian god is good.

Hax

02-15-2010, 11:07

ah very interesting i really like buddhism and think alot of it could be adopted by the world. but i like meat far too much.

Hahaha, don't worry about it. The eating of meat is not necessarily prohibited, it's more like a tradition rather than an actual rule. After all, it's said that Siddharta Gautama died from eating spoiled pork.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2010, 11:28

Depends on your definition of corrupt. That fact you are christian could mean the central tenet to why you are doing a corrupt action. So while you are arguably still a good christian, your actions depending on context could be corrupt in politics.

well, theologically speaking, a willfully corrupt action would go against God even if you used the excuse that you were doing it "in his name".

Though if I am entirely honest, I don't like the use of "true scotmans fallacy" on these forums, it is generally used out of content by opponents. Your example of a "good christian" is basically following what it is to be a good christian, so saying some one regularly goes against what it is to be a 'good christiian' means they are not a 'good christian'. Makes sense doesn't it?

Quite so, just as a real pacifist would never kill. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is about assigning a secondary catagory to something; not about primary catagories. As the central tenet of being a "good" Christian is about being un-corrupt in all things, someone who is corrupt is not being a good Christian.

Trading one kind of oppression for another isn't an advance, that's why we haven't done that, but instead simply removed the christian oppression and not replace with a similar oppression; all of our "oppressions" today pales in comparison to those of the past. And the worst oppressions of today, like the PATRIOT act, was instituted by.... Oh yeah that's right, the christian right.

A matter of opinion, the Bill currently going through the Houses here is oppressive; and pushed by the Left.

Not to you, no, as you believe that the christian god is a good one. It won't apply to someone who does not believe that the christian god is good.

Well, I'm only speaking about Christians; and a central tenet of Christianity is "God is Good".

Fixiwee

02-15-2010, 15:10

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2010, 15:13

Every religion is based on the human fear about the absolut and untangible act of death.
I know that no one knows what happens when you die.
Religions claim to know.
But I know that they don't know.
Religion is simply put comfort in an ocean of chaos.

How do you know they don't know, or aren't at least mostly right?

Prove it, otherwise you have no greater claim to "know".

Fixiwee

02-15-2010, 15:43

How do you know they don't know, or aren't at least mostly right?
Mostly right? I don't understand what this means.

How do I know they don't know? Because know one knows what happens after death. And I know you don't know it either. Simply because I don't know too!

Yet my point I am trying to make is not what people claim or don't claim. It is about that fundamently every religion circles about the fear of death.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2010, 16:46

So your arguement is that because you don't know, no one else does?

That's not a valid proof of anything. In any case, lack of empirical data does not demonstrate a lack of validity for a belief.

Fixiwee

02-15-2010, 17:05

So your arguement is that because you don't know, no one else does?
Yes. Because I don't know, I know that no one else can.
You say you believe in religion, not you know in religion.

That's not a valid proof of anything. In any case, lack of empirical data does not demonstrate a lack of validity for a belief.
I never said anything about the vailidity for a belief. Read my statement above again please.

Viking

02-15-2010, 17:16

Yes. Because I don't know, I know that no one else can.

Based upon that premise, of course you don't.

HoreTore

02-15-2010, 17:24

A matter of opinion, the Bill currently going through the Houses here is oppressive; and pushed by the Left.

And that bill would be what exactly?

At any rate, there really is no denying that we have a lot more freedom now than we did 50 or 100 years back. A good example of that would be Arnulf Øverland, who was tried for blasphemy in the 30's when he claimed that god had testicles, and Richard Dawkins, who has faced absolutely no reaction when he stated this:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

That be freedom of speech, yes...

ajaxfetish

02-15-2010, 17:46

Yes. Because I don't know, I know that no one else can.

Um, what?

I don't know how to speak Greek. Therefore, no one can know how to speak Greek. Some people say they know how to speak Greek, but I know that they don't actually know how to.

Ajax

Beskar

02-15-2010, 18:40

Um, what?

I don't know how to speak Greek. Therefore, no one can know how to speak Greek. Some people say they know how to speak Greek, but I know that they don't actually know how to.

Ajax

Incorrect, in his argument, he could get a "Learn Greek" dvd, and thus learn greek and therefore speak Greek or has the ability to know it. However, reading the bible won't magically make god appear out of thin air to be empirically testable.

Rhyfelwyr

02-15-2010, 18:42

Incorrect, in his argument, he could get a "Learn Greek" dvd, and thus learn greek and therefore speak Greek or has the ability to know it. However, reading the bible won't magically make god appear out of thin air to be empirically testable.

Does something have to be empirically testable in order for someone to know it?

ajaxfetish

02-15-2010, 18:42

Incorrect, in his argument, he could get a "Learn Greek" dvd, and thus learn greek and therefore speak Greek or has the ability to know it. However, reading the bible won't magically make god appear out of thin air to be empirically testable.

Except he didn't say, "because I'm pretty sure I could never know, no one can know."
He said, "because I don't know, no one can know."

It's a completely ridiculous statement.

Ajax

Beskar

02-15-2010, 18:49

Does something have to be empirically testable in order for someone to know it?

Pretty much, because otherwise, how can you say you know it?

You might suspect something, but that isn't the same as knowing something.

"I like my mothers cooking", you put the food in your mouth and eat it, you enjoy it, therefore, you like your mothers cooking. Could also be validated by looking at the nerve reception and activity, the response, etc you give.

Even in science with theories, there is a great amount of emperical testing to give at least credibility to what is being said and reasons why they believe in.

Viking

02-15-2010, 21:14

Incorrect, in his argument, he could get a "Learn Greek" dvd, and thus learn greek and therefore speak Greek or has the ability to know it. However, reading the bible won't magically make god appear out of thin air to be empirically testable.

He could get the "Learn what happens after death" DVD and discover. How someone could get hold of such knowledge is a theoretical point and pointless to debate.

Louis VI the Fat

02-15-2010, 21:20

I thought this is interessting. Just to make it clear; this is only statistics:

https://i.imgur.com/kpb5A.pngI thought that list looked familiar...

It is this list, inverted:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Census_Bureau) of 2000, French Americans (of French and French-Canadian ancestry) made up close to, or more than, 10% of the population of:

New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire) 25.2%
Vermont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont) 23.3%
Maine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine) 22.8%
Rhode Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island) 17.2%
Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana) 16.2%
Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts) 12.9%
Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut) 9.9%

Etcetera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_American:knight:

Fixiwee

02-15-2010, 21:28

Except he didn't say, "because I'm pretty sure I could never know, no one can know."
He said, "because I don't know, no one can know."

It's a completely ridiculous statement.

Ajax
Knowledge is based on evidence.
Believes are not.

No one can prove anything about death.
Therefor I know that no one knows anything about death, because I have not been proven otherwise.
One says "I believe in afterlife" not "I know in/about afterlife".

I'm sorry that you feel that my statement is completely ridiculous.

Rhyfelwyr

02-15-2010, 21:28

Louisiana and the older French possessions are a bit out of place though, which suggests they fit in with the north-east/deep south divides regardless of French influence :tongue2:

Viking

02-15-2010, 21:38

No one can prove anything about death.

You haven't proven that, it is only an assumption of yours.

Therefor I know that no one knows anything about death, because I have not been proven otherwise.

That you haven't been proven otherwise, does not mean anything. The fact that no one had "proven" the theory of special relativity in december 234 BC is completely uninteresting in this regard, as is your observation.

One says "I believe in afterlife" not "I know in/about afterlife".

Which is not relevant to the discussion at hand. You say that no one can know, something which you are unable to prove.

Reenk Roink

02-15-2010, 21:47

Does something have to be empirically testable in order for someone to know it?

2+2=4 (aka hell no)

Fixiwee

02-15-2010, 21:52

You haven't proven that, it is only an assumption of yours.
You haven't proven me wrong either. I make a statement and you can't falsify it.
I say: you don't know what happens after death. If you do, please prove it.

Kralizec

02-15-2010, 21:52

Quite so, just as a real pacifist would never kill. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is about assigning a secondary catagory to something; not about primary catagories. As the central tenet of being a "good" Christian is about being un-corrupt in all things, someone who is corrupt is not being a good Christian.

Not quite sure what you mean by primary/secondary catagories.

I suppose that if you said "a good man would never do something as evil as murdering someone" it wouldn't be a True Scotsman Fallacy (TSF) because the term "good man" implies that said man lives up to certain standards, and the statement would in fact be a tautology.
A pacifist is just someone who professes to have certain political convictions. Likewise, a christian is just someone who professes to believe in the god of the bible. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally I'm of the belief that anybody can kill a man under the "right" circumstances and mental duress, so of course I don't believe that pacifists are by definition incapable of killing.

You're of course free to think people who willingly do bad stuff aren't real christians because they don't put their beliefs in practice, but if you're consistent you also won't take every person's word for it that they're christians. In wich case we can't say anything meaningful about the amount of "real christians" in Europe.
Also, I'm an atheist but I think that your argument is also questionable from a theological perspective. Sin is the willing disobedience to God, and most christian denominations hold that all men are sinners. You (or was it Rhyf?) also claimed in the Ghandi thread that there's no qualitative difference between one sin and another, so I also think it's odd that you'd say that being corrupt is somehow worse than other kinds of immoral behaviour.

Even more interesting is that you think that the vast majority of politicians in Europe are corrupt, and disobedient to god...that sort of statement could easily have come from the mouth of an American TV-evangelical nutjob.

Viking

02-15-2010, 22:26

You haven't proven me wrong either. I make a statement and you can't falsify it.
I say: you don't know what happens after death. If you do, please prove it.

I haven't claimed anything, so I do not have to prove anything. I do not claim that it possible to know anything about what happens after death. That I cannot falsify your previous statements, does certainly not make them correct.

ajaxfetish

02-15-2010, 22:28

Knowledge is based on evidence.
Believes are not.

No one can prove anything about death.
Therefor I know that no one knows anything about death, because I have not been proven otherwise.
One says "I believe in afterlife" not "I know in/about afterlife".

I'm sorry that you feel that my statement is completely ridiculous.
I don't think your position is ridiculous. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with you that we cannot 'know' what happens after death. It is entirely a matter of belief, not knowledge.

The thing that was ridiculous was the nature of your supporting argument. Saying, "I do not know this, therefore it cannot be known," is both highly egotistical and deeply flawed. I don't know how twisting a tap results in flowing hot water in my bathroom. I don't know why the air in my fridge stays cold. I don't have the first clue how my car functions. Yet I'm convinced that other people do know these things, and I suspect I would not have hot running water or refrigeration if these things could not be known.

An argument along the lines of, "only observation can lead to knowledge and we have no observations from people who have already died, therefore we cannot know what happens after death," or along the lines of, "I have studied these religious texts and still do not know what happens after death, therefore I am convinced that those claiming to know as a result of these texts do not actually know" would be fine. The argument, " I do not know, therefore no one knows," on the other hand, is crap.

Ajax

The Wizard

02-15-2010, 23:16

I didn't say that, but I fail to see the advance in trading one kind of oppression for another.

I don't see how we traded in one kind of oppression for another when the politicians are just as corrupt but women and sexual minorities have actual rights. Sounds like progress to me, everything taken together.

actually, it's exactly the point. Before Constantine state religion was non-salvatory, and basically the equivilent of having a lucky rabbit's foot. How many of your modern "areligious" people who are not atheists are still superstitious? If you look at medieval Christians you would see they are also more "superstitious" than what you or I understand as "religious".

What a load of :daisy:, dude. Just because it doesn't conform to Christian or Abrahamic forms or ideas of worship doesn't mean it's not a religion. The vast majority in Greco-Roman civilization genuinely believed in the existence of the gods, there is no denying this. You're basically trying to argue against scientific consensus here using Christian arguments.

As for modern people, they might be superstitious but they don't believe in gods or follow any religion. As opposed to ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, etc etc etc.

They were superstitious, not religious. The multiplicity of Gods served a practical rather than a moral or spiritual purpose. The number of people who were religious in the modern sense was probably lower than today, percentage-wise, if anything.

Prove it. And not with some Christian apologetic, either.

Backwards in that definition 2 should have been definition 1. As to where is came from "a dictionary" means nothing. Dictionary of Englich? Of Philosophy? Of Theology?

It's in an English dictionary, meaning it's the commonly accepted and practiced definition within that language. Are you going to argue against a dictionary now, too?

Broadly speaking the modern elite are, I believe, as I first described them. One only has to look at the corruption and lack of direction in the EU to see this. However, saying that a "tiny, tiny" number were irreligious in the past is as relevent as saying a tiny, tiny number are religious today. The point is that this elite is not the first elite to be this way.

Ah so because they are corrupt (supposedly), that must be because they lack a religion? Do you now see why I accuse you of claiming non-Christians are amoral by definition?

80%? 80% are what, not sure what's out there? That's pretty understandable when the 10-20% with the time to ponder the question mostly don't bother.

That phrase, "20% to 80%", referred to the various percentages found in various countries. From the more than 80% who don't have a religion in the Czech Republic in some polls to the 18% that supposedly don't have a religion in all of Europe according to the Eurobarometer poll.

No, because this is not the first period of "irreligion" as you term it, and it's as likely to last as the others. I would have thought it was apparent that all previous periods of secularism failed spectacularly.

What previous periods of secularism? What previous periods of irreligion? The former is completely impossible since secularism is an idea not in existence before the modern age (and we are comparing pre-modernity to modernity); the latter is only possible if you radically alter the idea of ancient polytheistic religion as you are, which is very questionable and then I'm being charitable.

ajaxfetish

02-16-2010, 00:26

It's in an English dictionary, meaning it's the commonly accepted and practiced definition within that language. Are you going to argue against a dictionary now, too?
I love dictionaries, but I do want to point out that dictionaries are not foolproof, can vary significantly from one dictionary to another, need to be updated (and are usually about a generation behind usage), and that PVC's point about whether it was a specialist or general dictionary can be important, as a field-specific dictionary may have a more appropriate definition for the context of discussion. Ultimately, a well-reasoned argument for what a word means in the context of a discussion can be more valuable than an external authority such as a dictionary. Also, not all dictionaries command equal respect. Just saying it's a 'dictionary' or an 'English dictionary' doesn't mean much. Merriam Webster's? OED? American Heritage? Etc., etc.

Ajax