• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Drudge: God not so Dead: Atheism in Decline Worldwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html

Gurat, France – There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe that godlessness is in trouble.

"Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday.

His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today.

Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.

Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance."

As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.

Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible. But he has embraced the intelligent design concept of scholars such as William Dembski who only four years ago claimed to have been mobbed by pro-evolutionist colleagues at – of all places – Baylor University, a highly respected Southern Baptist institution in Waco, Tex.

The stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe makes Yahya's prediction sound probable: "The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world."

A few years ago, European scientists sniggered when studies in the United States – for example, at Harvard and Duke universities – showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District due to "spiritual resources."

Atheism's other Achilles heel are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. As McGrath relates in Christianity Today: "With time (atheism) turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively."

John Updike's observation, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been is drastic uninterestingness as an intellectual position," appears to become common currency throughout much of the West. The Rev. Paul M. Zulehner, dean of Vienna University's divinity school and one of the world's most distinguished sociologists of religion, told UPI Tuesday: "True atheists in Europe have become an infinitesimally small group. There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research."

The only exceptions to this rule, Zulehner said, are the former East Germany and the Czech Republic, where, as the saying goes, de-Christianization has been the only proven success of these regions' former communist rulers.

Zulehner cautions, however, that in the rest of Europe re-Christianization is by no means occurring. "What we are observing instead is a re-paganization," he went on, and this worries Christian theologians such as Munich's Pannenberg and the Rev. Gerald McDermott, an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke College in Salem, Va.

For although in every major European city except Paris spirituality is booming, according to Zulehner, this only proves the emergence of a diffuse belief system, Pannenberg said, but not the revitalization of traditional Christian religious faith.

Observing a similar phenomenon in the United States, McDermott stated that the "rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism."

After all, a Satanist is also "spiritual."

Pannenberg, a Lutheran, praised the Roman Catholic Church for handling this peril more wisely than many of his fellow Protestants. "The Catholics stick to the central message of Christianity without making any concessions in the ethical realm," he said, referring to issues such as same-sex "marriages" and abortion.

In a similar vain, Zulehner, a Catholic, sees Christianity's greatest opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable quests of contemporary humanity - the quest for freedom and truth. "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are inseparable properties to which freedom is linked."

As for the "peril of spirituality," Zulehner sounded quite sanguine. He concluded from his research that in the long run the survival of worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup:

"The great world religions are best placed," he said. As a distant second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he insisted, will come in at the tail end.
 

calder

Member
Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings.

...aaaaaaand that's where I stopped reading and burst out laughing. :lol
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.
What and what?

ahh, ditto calder. stopped reading there as well.
 

Alcibiades

Member
I met some Pagans this weekend, and I think one of them was affiliated with the Norse Gods. He said he once met an interesting Satanist that told him "I'm not one of those bad Satanists, I'm one of the good one". He didn't know what the heck the Satanist was talking about, and didn't know there was a difference between good and bad Satanists, but they had a talk and he thought it was funny how the "Satanist" and him were getting along... When I saw him he was wearing I think a Thor hammer around his neck, pretty nifty...
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
"Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are inseparable properties to which freedom is linked."

I'll take "Self-serving, and completely irrational statements" for $800, Alex.

Also, I am shocked - SHOCKED - that two Theologians are trying to spread doom/gloom/whatever about Atheism.
 

Alcibiades

Member
explodet said:
Who would win in a fight, Thor or Satan?

I think this was in the comics once.
Satan easily I'd say...

Heck, he probably couldn't even handle an Olympian, or even a half-God from Greece...
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
What type of horseshit article is this?
A few years ago, European scientists sniggered when studies in the United States – for example, at Harvard and Duke universities – showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District due to "spiritual resources."

Waitasec. You mean to tell me that if someone believes in something enough that it could actually be psychologically/physiologically beneficial???? WOW! Amazing! Now lemme go find Placebo and break the news to him. "The jig isn't up, man! The jig IS NOT UP!!"

And who are these sniggering God-hating European scientists anyway? Obviously they are down with the "Old" Europe. Assholes.
 

3rdman

Member
One of my favorite things is explaining to a Christian that he really should be praying to Satan. You see, if Satan really is the bearer of all things evil, wouldn't you want to "pray" to him to keep him from doing bad things?

In the Old Testament, God was a mean-old sum-bitch that would rain days of plagues, ask fathers to sacrifice one of his children, flood the earth, and turn city's into salt. People didn't pray to a God that protected them, they prayed to a God that could destroy them! Logically, it stands to reason, that if Satan is the present-day "destroyer of cities" then why are we not praying to him and begging his mercy?

:p
 
:lol
Were any actual atheists interviewed for this article? BTW, here's what Flew said in response to his comments being distorted by people like the author of this article:
Those rumours speak false. I remain still what I have been now for over fifty years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe the initial letter in the word 'atheist' in the way in which everyone construes the same initial letter in such words as 'atypical' and 'amoral'. For I still believe that it is impossible either to verify or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion happily described as "the religious hypothesis." The more I contemplate the eschatological teachings of Christianity and Islam the more I wish I could demonstrate their falsity. . . .

I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me.

BTW, why is the poster of this thread treating this as some kind of victory? If people exchange atheism for some kind of vague, non-Christian spirituality, they're still going to hell anyway.
 

snaildog

Member
I'd guess that Atheism's in decline and Agnosticism's on the way up? I for one held the belief long before I heard of the actual word.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
intelligent design concept
Is this going to be creationists' new weapon to pull their BS into the schools? Seems like many of them are pursuing a softer approach where they can't dump their dung without enraging the angry libruls.

And this article stinks.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
-jinx- said:
If you think that article was funny, you should read Link's post in the "what religion are you" thread.
Thanks for the tip jinx, now I wonder if I should feel bad for laughing at someone's beliefs.
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
bushchillin5ld.jpg


"Operation SHARE THE LOVE is working as planned, friends."
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Yet again certain religious people pull the moral card.

How exactly could a moral person make negative generalizations about groups of people without any basis to the claim?
 

NLB2

Banned
Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.

Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance."

As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.

How does someone get to the title of philosopher without having read Imanuel fucking Kant? Science has nothing to do with god, peeps. This was proven 250 years ago. Phenomenal evidence is meaningless when discussing things-in-themselves.
 

DaMan121

Member
Sigh, first off UPI is owned by a Reverand.. Second, Chrisitans and Muslisms are just one god away from being atheists as well... Hindus a few more though.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
DaMan121 said:
Sigh, first off UPI is owned by a Reverand.. Second, Chrisitans and Muslisms are just one god away from being atheists as well... Hindus a few more though.

My Non-Western Mythologies professor from back at PSU would take issue with that actually. One day she went on a tirade about how Who Wants to be a Millionaire had been completely wrong when the million dollar question indicated that Hinduism is polytheistic. Apparently, according to some interpretations, all the gods in Hinduism are really just different faces of one god. Kind of like the holy trinity of Christianity I suppose.
 
It's a bogus article. Appearing on Drudge just means our favorite right-wing internet media tool has fallen a little short on his "family values" quota this quarter.
 

Azih

Member
Hinduism is odd. It's like it spawned these amazingly deep philosophers hundreds of years ago. And then they died and their thoughts instead of being expanded on become dogma.
 
Actually, studies have shown there is a definite correlation between intelligence and and the need for religion.

I read in Science magazine that over 90% of this country believes in God, but that of people with an IQ over 140, only 15% do. Almost all well recognized and applauded scientists are atheist or agnostic.

Scientific American, September 1999


"Scientists and Religion in America"
"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."

Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998
"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"

A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God

Skeptic, vol.6 #2 1998


"Do You Believe in God?"


In multiple studies, there is a negative correlation between theism and morality. By Franzblau's 1934 study, there's a negative correlation between religiousity and honesty. Ross 1950 shows atheists and agnostics are more likely to express their willingness to help the poor than the deeply religious. 1969 Hirschi and Stark found no correlation in lawbreaking by churchgoing children and non-churchgoing children.

This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.

STUDIES OF STUDENTS

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

test
scores 100
50%
119
80%
%
rank
test rank test rank
believers non-believers
8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

mean
SATs 1022
1108
1119
1148

group religious slightly
anti-
religious moderately
anti-
religious strongly
anti-
religious
16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-
religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

Intelligence vs Faith

The link is truly there...as you go up the IQ chain, you will find less and less faith.
 
I'm not so sure I understand atheism. Do they believe there is absolutely, positively no god and there is no chance whatsoever that there might be a god, or at least some higher spiritual force? If one were to admit that the existence of a spirtual force may be possible, yet still maintain that that existence is highly unlikely , does that make him an agnostic? If so, then how can an atheist declare with such conviction that there is no possibility of there being a god?
 

Phoenix

Member
lilraylewis said:
I'm not so sure I understand atheism. Do they believe there is absolutely, positively no god and there is no chance whatsoever that there might be a god, or at least some higher spiritual force? If one were to admit that the existence of a spirtual force may be possible, yet still maintain that that existence is highly unlikely , does that make him an agnostic?

That would be the definition of agnostic yes..

If so, then how can an atheist declare with such conviction that there is no possibility of there being a god?

Because there are some people out there who actually believe that man at its current level of development can say many things with 100% conviction. Usually this is related to cornering catholocism or christianity into a corner and using that as a case against the existence of any form of god or diety.
 
Phoenix said:
Because there are some people out there who actually believe that man at its current level of development can say many things with 100% conviction. Usually this is related to cornering catholocism or christianity into a corner and using that as a case against the existence of any form of god or diety.

Hmmm. You just expanded my mind, man. So really, my and an antheist's disagreement stems from our opinions concerning whether or not we can say anything with 100% certainty. But now that I think about it, I do admit that there are some things we can saw with definite certatinty (e.g. logical truths: all A are B, all B are C, so all A are C.); but I feel the jury's always out on empirical truths such as the existance of a god. I mean, "new shit could come to light, man."

So I still don't understand athiesm. I think its perfectly reasonable to say, there's probably not a god; but to say there's definitely not one escapes my understanding.
 

mattx5

Member
DarthWoo said:
One day she went on a tirade about how Who Wants to be a Millionaire had been completely wrong when the million dollar question indicated that Hinduism is polytheistic.

Wow, stupidest game show question ever. Whoever thinks Hinduism is polytheistic needs their brains checked.
 
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.

Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm?rd=1

I fall into the former category. I lack belief, but I don't have the energy/time/desire to go about trying to prove that deities don't exist.
 

Mumbles

Member
lilraylewis said:
I'm not so sure I understand atheism. Do they believe there is absolutely, positively no god and there is no chance whatsoever that there might be a god, or at least some higher spiritual force? If one were to admit that the existence of a spirtual force may be possible, yet still maintain that that existence is highly unlikely , does that make him an agnostic? If so, then how can an atheist declare with such conviction that there is no possibility of there being a god?

Okay, let's go through the definitions:

Atheist: someone who does not believe in any gods.

"weak" atheist: someone who does not believe that gods exist, but does not believe that gods do not exist, either.

"strong" atheist: someone who believes that gods do not exist. Note that "absolute certainty" is not required, although most strong atheists will claim complete certainty about, say, the christian god or Thor.

theist: someone who believes that one or more gods exist.

Agnostic: someone who is undecided on the existence of gods. Basically, the same thing as an atheist. Yes, it was originally used to refer to people who withheld belief based on the belief that knowledge about gods was *impossible*, but it got horribly dumbed down.

And yes, the definitions among philosophers in general do differ from those used by laymen.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
THIS JUST IN DEPT.
FIT TO PRINT?
Issue of 2003-09-08
Posted 2003-09-01
Aficionados of the Drudge Report may have noticed several striking headlines recently linking to stories from the World Tribune, an enterprise with a title as grand and ambitious as it is unfamiliar. One such story last week began, “U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.” The apparent scoop—of stop-the-presses significance—was unsigned, and billed as a “special to World Tribune.com.” The Times, the Journal, and the Washington Post, meanwhile, not only got beat but failed even to acknowledge the news in the days that followed. What gives?

Not everyone ignored it: Rush Limbaugh, for instance. “There’s a piece in the World Tribune today—one of the papers in the United Kingdom—exactly as theorized on this program early on,” he said on his radio show. “It’s unconfirmed, but it’s a story that many of the weapons of mass destruction are at present buried in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon.” Fox News, catering to a similar demographic, enlisted a military analyst that evening to discuss potential ramifications—military intervention in Lebanon?—on “The O’Reilly Factor.” According to the story, the weapons were probably delivered to the Bekaa Valley, a Hezbollah stronghold, in a caravan of tractor-trailers that was spotted leaving Iraq in January, two months before the war began, as part of a multimillion- dollar storage deal between Saddam Hussein and the Syrian government.

In fact, the World Tribune is not published in the United Kingdom, nor is it, to be precise, a newspaper. It is a Web site produced, more or less as a hobby, in Falls Church, Virginia, and is dedicated to the notion, as its mission statement explains, that “there is a market for news of the world and not just news of the weird.” (Nonetheless, the site includes a prominent feature, Cosmic Tribune, with an extraterrestrial focus, and it links to a Mafia journal called Gang Land News.) Its editor and publisher, Robert Morton, is an assistant managing editor at the Washington Times and a former “corporate editor” for News World Communications, the Times’ owner and the publishing arm of the Unification Church, led by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. (Morton and his wife, Choon Boon, are themselves followers of the Reverend Moon.) Among the World Tribune’s other recent half-ignored scoops are that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for last month’s blackout and that a North Korean defector stressed, during a meeting in July with White House officials, the need for a preëmptive military strike against Kim Jong Il.

Morton said last week via e-mail that he founded the site as an experiment, back in 1998, while serving as a media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. “I didn’t expect World Tribune.com to last for more than a few months,” Morton wrote, but now, despite having no dedicated staff (“Everyone involved with World Tribune.com has a day job”), the site receives more than a million page views per month. And, unlike the Washington Times, which has lost at least a billion dollars in its twenty-one-year existence, World Tribune.com, in concert with the subscription-driven weekly intelligence briefing Geostrategy-Direct.com (a partner site), has paid for itself.

The secret of its success seems to involve well-placed informants (“Over the years I have developed an informal, international network of sources and writers I can trust,” Morton said) and an emphasis on immediacy. Although Morton said, “We emphasize newspaper standards to counter the half-baked, unfiltered content on some online sites,” World Tribune.com more fairly qualifies as something between a newspaper and a rumor-mongering blog. Call it “blews.” In this sense, it is part of a loose network of mostly conservative sites—WorldNetDaily, Dr. Koontz’s National Security Message Board, debka File (produced by a pair of Jerusalem-based journalists thought to have moles in Israeli intelligence)—whose dispatches sometimes serve as the journalistic equivalent of trial balloons: a story may not be based on knowable facts, but it nevertheless may occasionally turn out to be right. (Much of the time, of course, it more closely resembles a Bat Boy update in the Weekly World News.)

Take the Lebanon story. National- security buffs may have recalled hearing similar reports as far back as late December (beginning with an accusation from Ariel Sharon), and cropping up again in the spring (via debka). The story never quite stuck, however, and as of the end of last week no major newspaper had seen fit to tell it. Bill Gertz, the Washington Times’ best-known reporter, is a columnist and contributing editor for Geostrategy-Direct.com and a member of the World Tribune advisory board. A few days after the Tribune’s Lebanon lead, Gertz allowed that he, too, had been hearing the reports for months but hadn’t written anything about it for the paper. “I’ve never been able to nail it down myself,” he said. He would presumably have encountered similar difficulties with the story, available at Cosmic Tribune, of the increase in observed U.F.O. activity as Mars neared.

— Ben McGrath

Online here. Link, you really think this is a good source to be using?

I think any article on religion published by someone whose boss thinks he's the Messiah may be suspect.
 
I saw a recently published book while browsing at the local bookstore about this very topic. This seems to be a new trend among theists, arguing that despite every indication to the contrary, the world is growing more religious instead of more secular.
 

geogaddi

Banned
Many atheists expound on rationality/science, as if they are the perfect candidates to hold up science/rationality, when clearly it is not always the case that theists dismiss rationality/science altogether for the sake of appealing to 'god-of-the-gaps' arguments.

For example, the internet's most impressive database for pro-evolution literature is the Talk.Origins archives. In their website below, you read a propaganda "The Panda's Thumb" ( check it out here) . Below, its reads;

The Panda's Thumb is dedicated to explaining the theory of evolution, critiquing the claims of the anti-evolution movement, and defending the integrity of science and science education in America and around the world.


The Panda's Thumb is a virtual pub of the University of Ediacara.

The Panda's Thumb (PT) is dedicated to;

"explaining the theory of evolution" (p)
"critiquing...the anti-evolution movement" (q)
"defending the integrity of science..." (r)

So,

PT is dedicated to p, q & r -> PT is pro-evolution

A creationist organization (CO) can be dedicated to;

"explaining the theory of evolution" (p)
"critiquing...the evolution movement" (-q) (negating the content, not formally negating)
"defending the integrity of science..." (r)

So,

CO is dedicated to p, -q & r -> CO is not pro-evolution

PT's r is to say that CO doesn't do that, when CO could say that they do r by doing -q
This shows PT's strawman-style bias. PT wouldn't show its bias if it atleast does what science is all about, testing/examining/critiquing fish-to-philosopher evolution, instead of merely defending it a priori. PT might say that CO distorts p but CO might say PT distorts q. CO might say they truly are doing r because PT has decided to pre-suppose evolution to be true that they have to q.

This is the type of stuff that I laugh at, especially when people buy in to them.

In summary;

Many atheists (individuals, organizations, etc.) say "rationality, science, logic" but theists can say the very same thing, but say that because of "rationality, science, logic" they are NOT atheists. Many theist philosophers and scientists make such claims, I can give examples if anyone likes.

Point of this post;

Not to "attack" atheists, etc. but to show how they expound on "rationality, science etc." to bolster their image (in giving the impression "this is how it really ought to be har har! we are smart you are dumb!"), when in fact, those claims are strawman by nature (in its argumentative sense) because any theist can expound on the very same thing and say their conclusions are different enough that makes them theists instead of atheists. So, claims like "We Uphold Science baby! You Creationists Dont'!" and vice-versa should be ignored on the grounds that they are just strawmans and possibly, smoke-screens.

Point of fact, any collective group of people with certain biases and prejudices—including creationists and theists—do the same things. Just wanted to point this out in the midst of all these posts as of late.
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
MoccaJava said:
Yup. Unfortunately many of them think that being atheists just makes them so much smarter than anybody else.

Somebody once said you can divide any group into four quarters:

One quarter is in it because they were taught to be and never questioned why.

One quarter is in it because they think they HAVE to be and never question why.

One quarter is in it because they think it's the fashionable thing and gives them a leg up on the other guy, and never question why this is so.

One quarter actually made the informed decision to consider themselves so, and realizes that other people may actually have - good gods - real reasons for thinking or believing what they do aside from just not seeing the "obvious truth" of their own position.

Thing is, I don't doubt that some of the mainstream religious would look at any possible "decline" of Athiesm with glee "See we were right hee hee!" and the comments about fear of "paganization" are also predictable. As one person who was once a Christian, then Agnostic, and then Neo-Pagan told me: once you think some things you can't un-think them. Once something like say, Christianity falls through for you in a certain way, you can't just "go back". You can reconsider some concepts associated with it. But as a box, a package, it's not going to work ever again in the same way it did. What some Christians fear as paganization is, in some cases I have seen, people who realize the need for some kind of spiritual or metaphysical component to their perspective and having already been out of the box of one religion, do not believe they have to be in any one box again. Or they simply can't be.

I do suspect that there may be some increasing degree of disillusionment - but not neccessarily decline as such - with athiesm and extreme rational materialism. These things were once latched on to by some as a weapon to use against the "evils" of superstition and religion and for those people became a crusade of their own. Once they made the same mistakes the religious made because they were human too, well...
 

Che

Banned
Cyan said:
Oh the irony.


WTF are you talking about? You're the one believing in God, while you have absolutely no proof that God exists. And on top of that you have to obey and follow the non-existant's God insane rules.

And btw the article was fucking ridiculous. These right-wing idiots must face the fact that the more the people are getting educated the less they'll believe in agent myths. And I'm not gonna comment on every stupidity of this "article" cos I'm doing Link a favor by even reading this crap.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Just out of curiousity, where do statistics that claim to know the percentage of the population that is religious/believes in god/etc come from? And how do we know it's not the equivalent of the gay rights movement claiming one out of every three people is gay, or whatever the hell it is they say? Is every person that answers yes to "do yo believe in god" religious? Is every person who's a casual church-goer a devout Christian? I suppose I've known quite a few people who have some belief in a higher power or who goes to church out of habit or because they're dragged there, but a huge majority of people I've known or encountered in such discussions the past several years are not devout Christians. I've always had a suspicion that the statistics on which these "studies" are based are inflated and manipulated.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
demon said:
Just out of curiousity, where do statistics that claim to know the percentage of the population that is religious/believes in god/etc come from? And how do we know it's not the equivalent of the gay rights movement claiming one out of every three people is gay, or whatever the hell it is they say? Is every person that answers yes to "do yo believe in god" religious? Is every person who's a casual church-goer a devout Christian? I suppose I've known quite a few people who have some belief in a higher power or who goes to church out of habit or because they're dragged there, but a huge majority of people I've known or encountered in such discussions the past several years are not devout Christians. I've always had a suspicion that the statistics on which these "studies" are based are inflated and manipulated.

90% of all statistics are made up or fabricated.
 

Shig

Strap on your hooker ...
I don't see how people can see one set of beliefs as false or crazy, and then their own as perfectly reasonable. Christians will regard something like Greek history as completely fictitious, and then they go praise something who talks through burning bushes and makes it rain frogs, and his son who walked on water. I just don't see how anyone who has any history of living in reality can swallow stuff like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom