Atheists More Irrational than Religious in U.S.A.

[AntiTheist]

If someone is critically ill to the point of death, and suddenly but mysteriously is healed, would you not see this as a miracle

No. There are certainly cases where people are critically ill and then suddenly recover, just as there are certainly cases where people are perfectly fine and then suddenly drop dead.

We don’t perfectly understand everything that happens, but just because we don’t understand everything perfectly doesn’t mean it’s magic. And it certainly doesn’t prove it’s the kind of magic you happen to believe in. Maybe these unexplainable events are caused by mischievous leprechauns or ghosts or the gods of another religion or some other supernatural cause.

Personally, I see no reason to attribute these so-called miracles – or the miracles of other faiths, like those performed by Hindu “living saints” and gurus – to anything supernatural, and I see no reason to suppose that leprechauns, ghosts, goblins, or your god (or any other gods) exist.

 

[josie_L]

No. There are certainly cases where people are critically ill and then suddenly recover, just as there are certainly cases where people are perfectly fine and then suddenly drop dead.

We don’t perfectly understand everything that happens, but just because we don’t understand everything perfectly doesn’t mean it’s magic. And it certainly doesn’t prove it’s the kind of magic you happen to believe in. Maybe these unexplainable events are caused by mischievous leprechauns or ghosts or the gods of another religion or some other supernatural cause.

Personally, I see no reason to attribute these so-called miracles – or the miracles of other faiths, like those performed by Hindu “living saints” and gurus – to anything supernatural, and I see no reason to suppose that leprechauns, ghosts, goblins, or your god (or any other gods) exist.

I believe only the Catholic Church scrutinizes the miracles brought to her with scientific exactness, I can’t say the same of other religions. Nevertheless, you’ve missed the point, the host or rather the eucharist which Catholics believe contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ actually turned into flesh (cardiac flesh to be exact), and scientists studying this host have confirmed that it belongs to a person with an AB blood type from the Middle East, and you don’t see that has being a freakishly amazing coincidence. Science has therefore established the veracity (as it did with the more than 500 experiments by the WHO) of what the Church has always believed, the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen and allelujah.

p.s. You can disbelieve all you wish, but that will never taint the fact that the Lanciano phenomenon is a miracle.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I was being faceticious Yankee as I hardly think atheists and/or agnostics are interested in baptizing their children, makes no sense really since baptism entails receiving the Holy Spirit, removing original sin, and being adopted into God’s family (it’s a **Christian **sacrament). Anyways, Zuckerman’s statistics are way off, the number of atheists should be somewhere around 20 to 25%, as mentioned by the other sources I quoted.

The bottom line is over 70% of the Swedish people do not believe in god. They either believe in a life force (that they do not describe as a god or gods) or they don’t believe in anything at all (they’re pure materialists).

As for why so many Swedes are baptized; the most likely answer is people changed their minds from previous generations. In other words, this is the dawn of an atheist Sweden (and many people who are now parents, even grandparents, have changed their minds and no longer identify themselves as Christian – although they previously did).

This is really the only way to read these numbers!

Moreover, the sources you cited (at least the Eurobarometer poll) DO align with Zuckermans poll (albeit Eurobarometer went further then Zuckerman did in delineating subgroups among those who no longer identify as Christians).

I guess the fact you’re just not getting is not all atheists are pure materialists (only a small percentage are). I went through stages in my atheism (before ultimately arriving at a materialist position). If you don’t believe in god (or gods) you’re an atheist. Hence the words monotheism and polytheism … theism means believing in one or more gods. I don’t know how many other ways I can explain this?

 

[josie_L]

The bottom line is over 70% of the Swedish people do not believe in god. They either believe in a life force (that they do not describe as a god or gods) or they don’t believe in anything at all (they’re pure materialists).

As for why so many Swedes are baptized; the most likely answer is people changed their minds from previous generations. In other words, this is the dawn of an atheist Sweden (and many people who are now parents, even grandparents, have changed their minds and no longer identify themselves as Christian – although they previously did).

This is really the only way to read these numbers!

Moreover, the sources you cited (at least the Eurobarometer poll) DO align with Zuckermans poll (albeit Eurobarometer went further then Zuckerman did in delineating subgroups among those who no longer identify as Christians).

I guess the fact you’re just not getting is not all atheists are pure materialists (only a small percentage are). I went through stages in my atheism (before ultimately arriving at a materialist position). If you don’t believe in god (or gods) you’re an atheist. Hence the words monotheism and polytheism … theism means believing in one or more gods. I don’t know how many other ways I can explain this?

When you first showed up here, you described yourself as an agnostic, now you’re an atheist who believes only in the material? And I still don’t buy into Zuckerman’s statistics, I’ve already mentioned the reasons why. You’d have to be a magician to pull out the numbers he did, and you are deliberately assuming that those who believe in a spirit (or the Spirit) should be relegated as atheists, sorry if I don’t buy into your definition or reasoning.

p.s. If they are meant to be atheists, then why relegate a different category for them? I would think that it’s because those who believe in a life force, spirit, yada yada yada, do not perceive themselves as atheists.

 

[Hobble]

This thread is one big palm to forehead

 

[humble_maid]

I believe only the Catholic Church scrutinizes the miracles brought to her with scientific exactness, I can’t say the same of other religions. Nevertheless, you’ve missed the point, the host or rather the eucharist which Catholics believe contains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ actually turned into flesh (cardiac flesh to be exact), and scientists studying this host have confirmed that it belongs to a person with an AB blood type from the Middle East, and you don’t see that has being a freakishly amazing coincidence. Science has therefore established the veracity (as it did with the more than 500 experiments by the WHO) of what the Church has always believed, the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen and allelujah.

p.s. You can disbelieve all you wish, but that will never taint the fact that the Lanciano phenomenon is a miracle.

Amen and allelujah sister. Hope you don’t mind if I use your findings in another thread concerning this issue? God Bless you and lots of love in Christ Jesus, dear sister.

 

[josie_L]

Amen and allelujah sister. Hope you don’t mind if I use your findings in another thread concerning this issue? God Bless you and lots of love in Christ Jesus, dear sister.

Right back at you, sister!!

 

[yankee_doodle]

When you first showed up here, you described yourself as an agnostic, now you’re an atheist who believes only in the material? And I still don’t buy into Zuckerman’s statistics, I’ve already mentioned the reasons why. You’d have to be a magician to pull out the numbers he did, and you are deliberately assuming that those who believe in a spirit (or the Spirit) should be relegated as atheists, sorry if I don’t buy into your definition or reasoning.

Yes this is a palm to the head thread … uhhh, I guess I’ll go through this once again:

Let’s start with the most recent Gallup poll:

Irreligion in Europe by Gallup poll(2007-2008)
Country – Percentage
Estonia – 84%
Sweden – 83%
Denmark – 80%
Norway – 78%

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Gallup_poll_2007.E2.80.932008

Eurobarometer poll

Belief in a god --Belief in a spirit or life force – Belief in neither a spirit, god or life force.

Now, we have three categories.

1. Belief in a god
2. Belief in a spirit or life force; and
3. Belief in neither a spirit, god, or life force.

Numbers 2 and 3 do not believe in a god, only those who identified themselves in category 1 (believe in a god) believe in god. OK, I know I stated the obvious (but that’s what I’ve been doing and it’s still not sinking in … so hopefully three times is a charm ).

This is from the most atheist/agnostic countries on the list:

France – 34% – 27% – 33%
Netherlands – 34% – 37% – 27%
Norway – 32% – 47% – 17%
Denmark – 31% – 49% – 19%
Sweden – 23% – 53% – 23%
Czech Republic – 19% – 50% – 30%
Estonia – 16% – 54% – 26%

OK, now, how to read an opinion poll 101. As we see in France, 34% of people say they believe in god, 27% say they believe in a spirit or life force, while 33% believe in none of those.

That means only 34% of Frenchmen and women believe in god.

ATHEISM:

Merriam Webster:

1. a disbelief in the existence of a deity 2) the doctrine that there is no deity

From thefreedictionary.com/atheist:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

From dictionary.com

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There are all sorts of distinctions within atheism i.e. strong versus weak atheism, etc. There is also agnosticism, which is a non-committal position (generally skeptical about the existence of god, but they don’t profess atheism).

According to every single definition of atheism I could find, believing in a life force or spirit (but not in a god or gods) is atheism, or perhaps agnosticism … but it cannot be any form of theism.

Josie, if you really want to keep going around pretending northern Europeans are a bunch of Catholic bible pounders, go right ahead.

 

[yankee_doodle]

p.s. If they are meant to be atheists, then why relegate a different category for them? I would think that it’s because those who believe in a life force, spirit, yada yada yada, do not perceive themselves as atheists.

The poll created its own categories I assume to conform with what they viewed as the relevant distinctions (and they weren’t concerned with conforming to the definition of atheism). How about we try it this way, here’s the definition of theist:

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

thefreedictionary.com/Theist

belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism

There are of course further refinements of the word. For instance:

polytheism: belief in or worship of more than one god; and

monotheism: the doctrine or belief that there is but one God

The key thing is theism requires a belief in a god or gods. Anything else is either atheism or agnosticism.

 

[AntiTheist]

p.s. You can disbelieve all you wish, but that will never taint the fact that the Lanciano phenomenon is a miracle.

Let me get this straight: you think a hunk of flesh from the eighth century is confirmation that a miracle occurred?

If you do, PM me becauses I have a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[josie_L]

Josie, if you really want to keep going around pretending northern Europeans are a bunch of Catholic bible pounders, go right ahead.

Yankee do you have a problem listening to people when they talk to you, I mean did I ever once mention that Sweden or Northerm Europeans were a bunch of “Catholic bible pounders”, no I didn’t, therefore, stop putting words in my mouth. I contest only that stupid pundit of a sociologist, Zuckerman and his “statistical” data, nothing more or nothing less. I do not buy into his propaganda.

p.s. Buddhists don’t believe in a god per se, would you call them atheists or agnostics?

 

[josie_L]

Let me get this straight: you think a hunk of flesh from the eighth century is confirmation that a miracle occurred?

Yup I do.

If you do, PM me becauses I have a bridge I want to sell you.

And no I’d rather not PM you as I have no need for a bridge.

 

[rcscwc]

I agree that all of those other religions were fooling themselves. Because they didn’t know any better and had no real experience about what God was really all about or who He is.

I say you are fooling yourself because you didn’t know any better and had no real experience about what God was really all about or who He is.

They acted on whatever assumptions were handed down to them, or they made up something to fill the void.

Same about your religion.

The big difference I see, is that Christ gave us the Truth and nothing throughout the centuries has happened to discount that. But the hundreds of saints and miracle workers have only confirmed what we already know as true.

Hinduism is much much older than the “beginning”. Far more and better miracles are documented.

IF some of these saints or miracle workers had said, no Jesus is not God, He is merely a prophet as the Muslims claim then maybe you would have some grounds for contradiction. But the fact is, each and every saint has confirmed what has already been taught.

Each and every of our sages have attested to the godhood of Krishna. Find a contradiction.

 

[Elric]

I really dont get these miracles that happen, they are not really that productive.

It also seem that God is prone to mood swings, or has multiple personality disorder or there are 3 different gods.

First we have the wrath and vengeful God of the OT, then we have the forgiving and loving God of the NT and finally what seems to be the surealist God of now. One that makes corn chips into the shape of Mary, puts images on to grilled cheese sandwiches and turns wine into blood and bread into flesh or even puts invisible nails through peoples hands.

Personally I dont believe that God would waste its time with such things and would do something a little more worth while when performing a miracle.

As far as Saints and such, they probably were very devoted and dedicated people. But historians do like to embelish things especally the feats of well known individuals.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee do you have a problem listening to people when they talk to you, I mean did I ever once mention that Sweden or Northerm Europeans were a bunch of “Catholic bible pounders”, no I didn’t, therefore, stop putting words in my mouth. I contest only that stupid pundit of a sociologist, Zuckerman and his “statistical” data, nothing more or nothing less. I do not buy into his propaganda.

Yet you cite other polls that correspond with his data?

p.s. Buddhists don’t believe in a god per se, would you call them atheists or agnostics?

actually it depends. At its core Buddhism is NOT considered a theistic religion; and Buddha himself rejected deification (and believed no being is ascribed the powers of creation, the power of granting salvation or judgment, or omnipotence). Nevertheless some Buddhists venerate Buddha and consider him an omnipotent being (namely Mahayana forms of Buddhism).

The term Panentheism is usually ascribed to Buddhism; but Buddha himself never taught anything with regard to any god, and since his time refutation of the existence of a creator is seen as a key distinguishing factor between Buddhism and theistic religions.

Some Buddhists identify as atheists, while others claim to be Hindu’s or even Christians. Interestingly Buddhism predates Christianity by about 500 years. Here’s a little blurb on the possible link between Buddhism and Christianity:

During the life of Jesus Christ and the period in which texts like the Gospel of Thomas were composed, Buddhist missionaries lived in Alexandria, Egypt.[2] Historians believe that in the fourth century, Christian monasticism developed in Egypt, and it emerged with a corresponding structure comparable to the Buddhist monasticism of its time and place.

Maguire, Jack (2001). Essential Buddhism. Simon and Schuster. pp. 159-160

Here’s an interesting article discussing this possible link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity#cite_note-Maguire-3

 

[wcknight]

I say you are fooling yourself because you didn’t know any better and had no real experience about what God was really all about or who He is.

Same about your religion.

Hinduism is much much older than the “beginning”. Far more and better miracles are documented.

Each and every of our sages have attested to the godhood of Krishna. Find a contradiction.

And how many gods do you have ? Is it one or hundreds ?

I don’t know much about your god or gods so I’m not going to say anything about it one way or another. Being old does not make it right.

I know a lot about my own so, what I will say is “what has God done for you (as n the religion as a whole) lately”. The God, we are familiar with is the same as that of the Hebrews, and Jesus along with His followers have produced hundreds of saints and miracle worker through out the centuries since. Every century including the last has witnessed saints who have performed many miraculous deeds.

Our last great miracle worker was St Padre Pio, died in the 1960s (and some claim Pope John Paul II is also credited with number of miracles). These were holy and upright men, no charalatans or folks with questionable morals or reputations.

Maybe your religion has a similar history, I don’t know. You don’t know the experiences Ive had and I don’t know what you’ve had. It’s doesn’t matter. You can believe what you will, but I happen to believe the documented history about the saints of my faith.

I have meet folks who knew Padre Pio personally. These are first hand eye witnesses to a person of great personal integrity and a miracle worker extradinarire, right up to the day he died and to this day his Body is still in perfect condition after almost 50 years. Dispite what these yahoos say, you can NOT preserve a body for that long no matter how many preservatives you use or whatever embalming you do.

Now tell me, do you have a hindu saint or two whose body has been preserved throughout the ages ?

I don’t know God’s plan for everyone else, so maybe He has revealed himself in other ways to other folks around the world. So as far as consistentcy in your religion that is something for you to examine on your own. If your religion rings true for you, then good for you.

I have no doubt that there have been noble, upright, and saintly folks in just about every religion. And maybe some of them have been gifted with extraordinary abilities as well. But for me, I see a whole bunch of them in our religion and not just hundreds or thousands or years ago. IF your religion can claim the same thing, good for you, go for it.

 

[wcknight]

You specifically asked for saints and miracle workers of other religions – presumably because you think there aren’t any and that that somehow suggests that Catholicism is true.

So I supply a partial list, and that changes nothing. You “can’t judge these other folks.” Okay.

But let’s go back to your original post:Well, doesn’t this apply equally to the eyewitnesses of Hindu miracles? To eyewitnesses of miracles of other religions? What about Hindu near-death experiences where people claim to have seen Lord Krishna or whatnot? Heck, how about the hundreds (thousands?) of people who claim to have seen UFOs?

I’m not trying to be mean here, but you claim that I “choose not to believe evidence on [my] own arbitrary criteria.”

Yet, look what you’ve done. You believe the so-called “evidence” for Catholicism because it supports what you want to be true. If you were born in India and were a Hindu, you’d be citing Hindu miracles, Hindu holy-men “could a man as good as Gandhi really have been wrong?”], and Hindu near-death experiences “he says he saw Lord Krishna…and he was so lucid. You can’t discount it because he was dying. He wouldn’t make it up!”].

Which of us really accepts evidence on the basis of “arbitrary criteria”?

These other faiths may have similar experiences, I don’t know about their faith and maybe God deals with other folks similar to Christians, I don’t know and It doesn’t really bother me.

I know how he has been present for Christians and Catholics in particular.

IF God gives these other folks similar experiences then that only proves my point that He exists. The fact that ALL Catholic saints say that Christ is who He claims to be merely confirms that our faith is correct as advertised.

IF a few had claimed that Christ is not God, but Buddha is or some other faith was correct then there would be some confusion as to whether our faith was what it is supposed to be.

I see no contradiction IF God happens to tell folks in India that His name is Krisna, or He tells folks in muslim countries that His name is Allah. As long as God proclaims Himself as the One and only God, then they are the same to me.

In Mathematics and logic, IF all claim that there is only one God then that one God must necessarily be identical, especially if all claim the same characteristics, all powerful, all merciful Creator of all things.

As far as whose faithis more correct, then that’s a problem for the theologians to debate. I follow the one that I think is correct and others can follow the ones that they believe. I don’t have a problem with that.

It’s atheists who can not fantom more than one religion being correct. Your thinking that since not every religion agrees then all must be wrong, is false. It is possible that many religions could be correct to varying degrees.

The only absolute is whether or not God exists. In this we all agree that atheists are 100% wrong.

So if other faiths have similar folks with legitimate simliar miraculous experiences, then that only makes my case even stronger, that God exists.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Now tell me, do you have a hindu saint or two whose body has been preserved throughout the ages ?

do you know how truly scientifically absurd upholding the myth of miraculous incorruptibility is? Under certain conditions bodies can avoid decomposition. However, it’s also true that some of the bodies the CC claims are incorruptible are partially wax at this point.

There is no Catholic allegation of a miracle that can withstand real scrutiny; and the concept of incorruptibility is truly one of the most (perhaps the most) macabre religious practices I know of.

 

[josie_L]

do you know how truly scientifically absurd upholding the myth of miraculous incorruptibility is? Under certain conditions bodies can avoid decomposition. However, it’s also true that some of the bodies the CC claims are incorruptible are partially wax at this point.

There is no Catholic allegation of a miracle that can withstand real scrutiny; and the concept of incorruptibility is truly one of the most (perhaps the most) macabre religious practices I know of.

Incorruptibility is not a practice, it just happens, moreover, saints like Bernadette de Soubirous were (and they have many witnesses to attest this) devoid of corruption when they exhumed her body decades after her death. The only reason she now wears a wax cover over her face is because when she was exhumed, the nuns (not knowing any better) washed her with soap (as they intended to put her on display) which turned her skin somewhat brown. Furthermore, what the heck do you mean by “real” as I just showed you one prime example of how science validated a miracle of the Church, i.e., the Lanciano Miracle.

p.s. And talk about macabre, in Boston they have a museum which displays (dead) humans in various poses in order to exhibit the human body. We are talking about skinless people with muscles, fat, nerves and all, on display. This is done all in the name of science.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Incorruptibility is not a practice, it just happens,

straw man … I never said it was a practice (or anything that would give rise to this response)

moreover, saints like Bernadette de Soubirous were (and they have many witnesses to attest this) devoid of corruption when they exhumed her body decades after her death. The only reason she now wears a wax cover over her face is because when she was exhumed,

yeah OK (and Ireland really was occupied by leprechauns in its ancient past)

the nuns (not knowing any better) washed her with soap (as they intended to put her on display) which turned her skin somewhat brown. Furthermore, what the heck do you mean by “real” as I just showed you one prime example of how science validated a miracle of the Church, i.e., the Lanciano Miracle.

save the story … I’ve heard it (although these myths always provide a good laugh)

p.s. And talk about macabre, in Boston they have a museum which displays (dead) humans in various poses in order to exhibit the human body. We are talking about skinless people with muscles, fat, nerves and all, on display. This is done all in the name of science.

at least they don’t claim the bodies are incorruptible ancient dead people they dug up

anyway, what’s wrong with that sort of display? It’s our real human bodies. It’s not creating a fabrication playing on the superstition and ignorance of people like Catholic myths do