Atheists delusional?

[Paddy1989]

Everything you said here is nonsense. Religion is growing, Christanity and Islam is both growing and the biggest sting to Atheism is that the nation with the biggest concentration of secularists in the world will eventually become the largest Christian nation on earth (China). As for trying to channel the divine or the dead, the occult is higher than it’s ever been in history and becoming so popular for kids much due to Hollywood, there are more exorcists in the world now than 50 years ago. Also non religious people have the lowest number of births in society so while religion increases atheists will die off by their own choice to not reproduce.

 

[Paddy1989]

I feel we are getting lost in semantics. Inherent worth by your definition or intrinsic value in mine which is quite the same anyway when explaining humanity. The truth under the Christian world-view is that humanity has inherent worth/intrinsic value and dignity, such a thing holds no truth in the naturalist worldview therefore this is why we disagree. As for we do not hold people to be equal, as a Catholic I do and so does Western law built upon values that holds this truth, you are right in saying we don’t always treat each other this way and also there is a growing number of people mainly secularists who affirm that we hold no equal worth or value. As for saying Lincoln has more worth or value as a human than Hitler, again this is where we disagree and even the law would prohibit you acting out this way to some extent and against any other Criminal. Criminals as hideous as their crime may be are still entitled to be treated with dignity and respect as equal in value as any member of the human race whose actions have prohibited them from associating with the rest of civilized society who are kept safe from their actions. Actions don’t interfere with how law views ones human value or worth, their actions merely dictate the consequences so that even when acting out justice against this criminal we do so always in a way that recognizes the criminal’s human value and dignity.

Does a man who discovers cures for numerous diseases saving millions of lives hold more human value or worth than a homeless man? Not from my Christian worldview but yours perhaps. In terms of the value of his works then yes but in terms of value of his life, no. As for saying we do not subscribe to what Jesus taught, I believe we do, I mean western society for the most part was built on his teachings though we dont always live up to it. I can only think of the quote by G.K Chesterton on this “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried”

We must not stop trying. The church is filled with many Saints who achieved this and we are called up to their standard. Lets not animalize ourselves because the Christian message of humanity is found too difficult. As for Jesus teaching a kind of socialism, there have been many foolish tags atheists attach to Jesus and this is up there with the worst of them. Human value is only subjective in a worldview that denies that there is any objective value to humanity, I don’t nor does most of the world subscribe to such a worldview which is naturalism.

 

[Paddy1989]

Of course, I mean that Catholicism was not tried; plenty of Catholics were tried, and found guilty. My point is that the world did not tire of the church’s ideal, but of its reality. Monasteries were impugned not for the chastity of monks, but for the unchastity of monks. Christianity was unpopular not because of the humility, but of the arrogance of Christians. Certainly, if the church failed it was largely through the churchmen. … [T]he great ideals of the past failed not by being outlived (which must mean over-lived), but by not being lived enough. Mankind has not passed through the Middle Ages. Rather mankind has retreated from the Middle Ages in reaction and rout. The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. (G. K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong with the World (1910), ch. 1.5)

 

[Russell_SA]

Everything you said here is nonsense.

No it isn’t. That which is just accerted without reasons is dismissed without reasons.

Religion is growing, Christanity and Islam is both growing

Non-belief is the fastest growing belief claim in the world now, second largest in the US. Just not the largest. People don’t find your claims of referencing magic as credible or an adult response to our problems.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay....theism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

As for trying to channel the divine or the dead, the occult is higher than it’s ever been in history and becoming so popular for kids much due to Hollywood, there are more exorcists in the world now than 50 years ago.

The population of the planet has also increased by 28% since the 50s as well no thanks to your organization spreading the lie that birth control is harmful, fails, and not teaching its proper use is tied to foreign aid support.
As to ‘channeling powers’, they are not applying a documented skill. Their just practicing ignorant cultural practices that actually don’t do anything.

Also non religious people have the lowest number of births in society so while religion increases atheists will die off by their own choice to not reproduce.

Yes they have lower birth rates due to higher levels of education and better societies that empower women to be taken off the religious’ breeding schedules. Their countries also have the best social prosperity since they do not over populate and have enough to provide for everyone’s needs unlike the failed experiment of religious countries. The movie Ideocracy was not supposed to be a documentary.

So addressed those points, could you address my other points you did not address:

1: As to the religious’ attempt to solve a philosophical problem of absolute morality by reference to a deity
2: Referencing your deity as a moral absolute
3: Problem with referencing a dictator as a reference for our morality and governance
4: The religious deity is no different than an invented comic book hero.

 

[Pup7]

The population of the planet has also increased by 28% since the 50s as well no thanks to your organization spreading the lie that birth control is harmful, fails, and not teaching its proper use is tied to foreign aid support.

So better medical care, vaccination, and longer life span has absolutely nothing to do with that. Good to know.

Also glad to know the UN doesn’t teach proper use of birth control and the US government doesn’t either, and ties that to foreign aid checks. Sure.

Non-belief is the fastest growing belief claim in the world now, second largest in the US.

Are you 100% sure on that statement? Even a dirty Google search casts much doubt on that assertion.

Most people in the US seem to believe in God, if not claim an organized denomination, so “growing” doesn’t translate into “second largest belief system” in the US.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewforum.org

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

8 facts about atheists

Around six-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (64%). And seven-in-ten are ages 49 or younger, compared with about half of U.S. adults overall (52%).

www.pewresearch.org

Pew Research says declared atheists are about 3.1% of the population. Now I guess if you count that that means the overwhelming majority of Americans claim some belief in God at a minimum, then yes, you’d be correct.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve danced with him a few times.

Russell is very emotionally attached to his religious preference.

Like any zealot, he likes to toss up supporting information even if the quality is obviously dubious. Brace yourself for a lot of Dawkins and Hitchens lines.

 

[Russell_SA]

You’re correct on your statement there that declared atheists are about 3.1% of the population. I was using stats that include people that declare themselves as “nones” when asked what religious affiliation they identify with.
As to the population increase, I was only referring to the anti-birth control movement the catholic church is associated with by tying it’s foreign aid support, by the catholic church. At the UN Cairo conference on population control, the catholic church sided with muslim countries to remove international aid on condition of family planning and condom education.
This is directly relevant to the advancement of AIDs in Africa and continues to cause the death and suffering of millions of people around the world.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is directly relevant to the advancement of AIDs in Africa…

Auxiliary at very best. The biggest problem in Africa is the cultural idea that men should have as many children as possible as a status symbol which existed before the papists showed up.

And how many times have we read the provocative quotes from multiple popes about maybe condom use being the lesser of two evils?

As I’ve told many of the ultra-conservatives on this site, lets be sure to not let rationality get in the way of our ideology!

 

[Pup7]

You implied that the (admittedly inappropriately applied) condom fiasco was the sole reason for population growth. No, it is not. It likely attributed to a population decline, to be fair. But regardless, it didn’t contribute as the sole reason for the 20-something percent growth in the world population since the 1950s. It’s pretty easy to deduce that’s due to improved medical care, vaccines, and better nutrition, all of which contribute to longer life spans and lowered infant mortality.

You said that “non belief is the fastest growing belief claim in the world now, second largest in the US”. Claiming no religious affiliation does not automatically make one atheist - it makes one unaffliated. The 22.8% of the US that affirms this are the “nones”.

While I’m at it, “atheist” isn’t a tag Christians or Catholics or anyone else have branded nonbelievers with. It’s an appropriate term meaning you don’t have a belief in any God. And it’s fine that you don’t, actually. Most of us have no issue with that. What bugs us is disrespect for our beliefs. I don’t disrespect yours as I like discussing all sorts of beliefs (because atheism is indeed a belief system). But calling my God, whom I have a very strong belief in, a comic book character is pretty disrespectful.

 

[Pup7]

The biggest problem in Africa is the cultural idea that men should have as many children as possible as a status symbol which existed before the papists showed up.

What also didn’t help was when some leader - I can’t remember who it was - told his constituents that condoms were an insult to manhood and that AIDS was an invention of the West to keep Africans from procreating. I might have screwed up his words, but I can remember something along those lines being said.

 

[Russell_SA]

Auxiliary at very best. The biggest problem in Africa is the cultural idea that men should have as many children as possible as a status symbol which existed before the papists showed up.

That could be a factor, but I would suggest that the sexual drive of men and women is more of a factor. To enjoy sex for its self and not desire a child as a result. That is evident in all the single mothers out there where the man walked away from his responsibilities. When men brag about how many children they have, I believe it is when the man is attempting to care for all his children he created. The spread of sexually transmitted diseases is spread in either case though. But to spread the lie that about condom use not working and to tying aid work to the condition of condom use and family planning is absolutely wrong and directly leading to the suffering of millions.

 

[Russell_SA]

You implied that the (admittedly inappropriately applied) condom fiasco was the sole reason for population growth. No, it is not. It likely attributed to a population decline, to be fair. But regardless, it didn’t contribute as the sole reason for the 20-something percent growth in the world population since the 1950s. It’s pretty easy to deduce that’s due to improved medical care, vaccines, and better nutrition, all of which contribute to longer life spans and lowered infant mortality.

I was addressing his point of more people are now doing X than they were in 1950. Well, yes, that is because the population has increased. There are more people now than there was before.
My point of condom use is that the catholic church is anti-condom use and thus directly contributes to more unplanned pregnancies. I just don’t see a way around that conclusion. Yes there are other factors of increased population, better standards of living, but I was addressing the point of people misinformed about family planning and lack of contraceptives will most likely result in an unplanned pregnancy. Your points are fair to make of course.

You said that “non belief is the fastest growing belief claim in the world now, second largest in the US”. Claiming no religious affiliation does not automatically make one atheist - it makes one unaffliated. The 22.8% of the US that affirms this are the “nones”.

I agree with you here. Correct observation. Atheist is a label for people that are put on them by the religious since we are not convinced of their claims about the supernatural. So you are correct that no religions does not make one an atheist because you can still be a deist as well.

While I’m at it, “atheist” isn’t a tag Christians or Catholics or anyone else have branded nonbelievers with.

We don’t create descriptive titles for our group of what we don’t believe in but rather by what we do. The people that believe X create a label to describe everyone else that does not believe X. It’s the same reason the we don’t have a term for being an a-fairiest or a-unicornist. Only the people that are active believers in fairies and unicorns need a label for people that don’t believe those ideas are true. Everyone else just goes along not using those terms because they don’t implement those ideas as separate from the imagination.

 

[Russell_SA]

What bugs us is disrespect for our beliefs. I don’t disrespect yours as I like discussing all sorts of beliefs (because atheism is indeed a belief system).

Actually yes religion is very institutional to disrespecting other’s beliefs. It is common practice for the church and families to disown their children and members who are atheists and/or gay. It is common practice for the catholic church and many other religions to promote antisemitism. It is common practice for the religious to not encourage close associations with people outside of its faith, to the point of marriage or just friendship. It is common practice for the catholic church and other religious groups to legalize their cultural practices onto everyone else under that government. It is common practice for the church to hide its clergy from legal prosecution for the sake of church unity. And so on and so on.
Atheist is a label put on someone about a single question on a single issue. “Do you believe that the supernatural exists?” No, no we don’t. You can’t go from that response to knowing the person’s world view, political views, leaders, tenants, dogma, etc. Example: Take a jury member at a trial. The default position the jury member is at is to not believe that the defendant is guilty. The default positions is not to believe the prosecutor’s position. If the prosecutor does not provide a convincing argument or evidence to sway the jury member, then the jury member remains unconvinced, the default position. This does not mean the jury member knows that the defendant is innocent, just that they do not believe the defendant is guilty based on the bad arguments and evidence presented. The defendant may have actually done the crime, but the jury member can’t know that. Now, what is the jury member’s world view? Political view? educational level? cultural biases? leaders? dogma? You can’t know this based on the the jury member telling you, “You did not convince me.” That’s all the label of Atheist is. Someone whom the religious/prosecutor did not convince. The term Atheism is just like the term Not-Guilty-ism. There’s not such thing since there are not tenants or how-to’s to have a world view of Not-Guilty-ism or Atheism. There are world views that tend to have more atheists in them, like Skepticism, Secular Humanism, etc. but you can still be religious and part of those world views too.

 

[Russell_SA]

But calling my God, whom I have a very strong belief in, a comic book character is pretty disrespectful.

I was referring to the process for justified belief in the supernatural. The apologetic used to conclude the supernatural exists is the same process comic book writers use for creating powerful characters. They come up with a logically consistent back story and then write stories about it’s interaction with us now. The problem is though, they can not demonstrate that it exists in reality at all. How is this not a correct analogy?

 

[Pup7]

Actually yes religion is very institutional to disrespecting other’s beliefs. It is common practice for the church and families to disown their children and members who are atheists and/or gay… And so on and so on.

Have I disrespected your beliefs, or has the Church? You’re guilty here of that which you’re accusing me of just by virtue of the fact that I’m Catholic.

You can’t go from that response to knowing the person’s world view, political views, leaders, tenants, dogma, etc

You’re limiting yourself here. Again, you’re guilty of that which you’re accusing me of. You don’t know if I’m more of a Pope Francis kind of girl or a hardline pre-Vatican II. So you honestly don’t know what I think - you’re assuming, based on the statement that I’m Catholic.

There are world views that tend to have more atheists in them, like Skepticism, Secular Humanism, etc. but you can still be religious…

Of course you can - but you wouldn’t be Christian entirely, and you certainly wouldn’t identify as Catholic.

It is common practice for the catholic church and many other religions to promote antisemitism…to legalize their cultural practices onto everyone else under that government.

Your use of “common practice” as a norm is a bit disturbing and close-minded (and your first assertion is pure bunk). I’d say the secular world is even more guilty of anything you mention than any organized religion could hope to be. Hitler and the dictatorships established under Soviet rule come to mind.

We don’t create descriptive titles for our group of what we don’t believe in but rather by what we do.

It’s in the dictionary. Look it up.

So you are correct that no religions does not make one an atheist because you can still be a deist as well.

Still not what “unaffiliated” strictly means.

My point of condom use is that the catholic church is anti-condom use and thus directly contributes to more unplanned pregnancies.

Condom use, my friend, has fallen worldwide, and that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. I’m an RN. Believe me, it’s nothing to do with religion.

I was addressing the point of people misinformed about family planning and lack of contraceptives will most likely result in an unplanned pregnancy

That isn’t what you originally said, though:

The population of the planet has also increased by 28% since the 50s as well no thanks to your organization spreading the lie that birth control is harmful, fails, and not teaching its proper use is tied to foreign aid support.

…none of which would have significant impact on population growth.

 

[Russell_SA]

Have I disrespected your beliefs, or has the Church?

I’m referencing the organization of the church and the outsider’s experience of the church on other’s lives. If I implied that it was directed at you, then let me clarify that. No it was not directed at you personally.

Again, you’re guilty of that which you’re accusing me of.

This was not targeted at your, but the religious organization. Also, it is fair to assume that a member of an organization associates with some, but not necessarily, all of the tenants of that organization. Otherwise, it would be like a self proclaimed baker attending a group on banjo playing. The baker wants to learn more about banjo playing, so we can assume they approve of the annoying music produced by the banjo. However, if the baker attends a meeting for people that claim to not believe the banjo exists, what do they talk about? Nothing, nothing at all because you can’t have a world view about non-existent banjos. You can have a world view about guitars and saxophones for example and how to implement those into reality though. When atheists get together, it’s like herding cats. We all have individual world views and political views. We are just discussing the encroachment of religion in law and schools mostly. We’re fine if you want to hold that for yourself, but it is not to be forced upon us by law or onto children who can not tell you they don’t believe this is true. Imagine if I was to present my 5 year old as, “Here’s sarah, the alt-right republican”. How uncomfortable would you be for that child’s life since she has no idea what her political views are actually to be for herself and you can see that I am grooming her towards that view point? Same when religious people present their children as “christian children”.

Of course you can - but you wouldn’t be Christian entirely

Many great scientists, like Francis Sellers Collins - head of the human genome project, is a skeptic and a christian.

 

[Russell_SA]

Your use of “common practice” as a norm is a bit disturbing and close-minded (and your first assertion is pure bunk).

Well the leading organization involved with antisemitism and fascism of the 20th century in eastern Europe is just the catholic right. There’s just no other name for it. This is easily researched and well documented.

I’d say the secular world is even more guilty of anything you mention than any organized religion could hope to be. Hitler and the dictatorships established under Soviet rule come to mind.

Hitler was religious, had his birthday celebrated from the catholic pulpit every year till the 60’s. None of the SS were ever threatened with ex-communication except one was for marrying a protestant. Glad to see the catholic church has its standards.
Soviet was not religious, but I’m not sure you could call it secular either. Secular groups do not teach people that they are inherently broken and need a savior in the form of a deity, hero, or government. The groups that teach that pronouncements of the dear leader as infallible and thus create a bulls-eye around the arrow or just conclude the pronouncements are infallible but they are just too ignorant to understand why that is moral or correct are not secular. Those teachings is how you keep ignorant people credulous; who are trained to stay on their knees at the feet of a leader in the form of the divine or a government. I don’t think you can call that Secular just because they don’t prescribe a believe in the supernatural. You can still have those religious mindsets and not believe in the supernatural. But if you want to call them secular that’s fine too. I don’t identify with that group then and no one I know does, deist or atheist. Theists do though. That is where religion is fundamentally broken to me. To teach people from birth that they are too ignorant and broken to ever stand up to their full height as adults but must forever grovel to appease the dear leader for their self worth and meaning.

 

[Pup7]

When atheists get together, it’s like herding cats. We all have individual world views and political views. We are just discussing the encroachment of religion in law and schools mostly. We’re fine if you want to hold that for yourself, but it is not to be forced upon us by law or onto children who can not tell you they don’t believe this is true.

What makes you think when Catholics get together we all sit around talking about how much we love the Pope and Jesus? LOL have you been on CAF lately?

Christians equally don’t want to be told they can’t pray in public, or they can’t pray before a football game, or they can’t say the Pledge of Allegiance or have a cross on their desk that has nothing to do with you, but some one who doesn’t believe complains it’s oppressive and then the Christian is forced to remove it. Why? It had nothing to do with the complainant. It’s equally discriminatory.

Same when religious people present their children as “christian children”.

Who on earth does this? I don’t go around saying, “Hi, I’m Pup7, I’m Catholic and my husband is Anglican.”

Many great scientists, like Francis Sellers Collins - head of the human genome project, is a skeptic and a christian.

There is a difference in being skeptical and saying you’re an out and out humanist.

Well the leading organization involved with antisemitism and fascism of the 20th century in eastern Europe is just the catholic right.

Hitler wasn’t Catholic. Neither was Mussolini. Myth.

Hitler was religious, had his birthday celebrated from the catholic pulpit every year till the 60’s. None of the SS were ever threatened with ex-communication except one was for marrying a protestant. Glad to see the catholic church has its standards.

Myth.

To teach people from birth that they are too ignorant and broken to ever stand up to their full height as adults but must forever grovel to appease the dear leader for their self worth and meaning.

This isn’t North Korea.

 

[Russell_SA]

It’s in the dictionary. Look it up

Don’t care. I’m telling you how I see it used and applied so that you understand what I am talking about. Not going to get in a slapping match over correct use of terms when I have given you my definition of how I see these words used. That way you can understand what I am saying instead of what you think I am saying because you use those words differently.

Still not what “unaffiliated” strictly means.

Okay, so you score a point here. Doesn’t really progress the conversation since you did not follow up with anything to offer understanding. Just saying, No it’s not, is just annoying in conversation.

Condom use, my friend, has fallen worldwide, and that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. I’m an RN. Believe me, it’s nothing to do with religion.

I completely disagree. Our beliefs shape our actions. So the misinformation of the church on condom use is what directly influences people’s beliefs about condom use. I don’t see away around that.

That isn’t what you originally said, though:

He also didn’t follow up with a conversation about it to see if that was what I was getting to or not. It just turned into a snipping conversation on who has the last word. He had no interest in follow ups for clarification.

 

[Pup7]

Doesn’t really progress the conversation since you did not follow up with anything to offer understanding. Just saying, No it’s not, is just annoying in conversation.

I posted links explaining it in the response prior. Why would I reiterate that which was already said?

So the misinformation of the church on condom use is what directly influences people’s beliefs about condom use.

No. It has nothing to do with religion. It’s happening everywhere. It’s not religiously based. It’s a cultural thing.