The Religion Discussion

[nareshseep]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 58046.html

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, analysis of over 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades concludes

A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.

A piece of University of Rochester analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies.

According to the study entitled, 'The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations', published in the 'Personality and Social Psychology Review', even during early years the more intelligent a child is the more likely it would be to turn away from religion.

In old age above average intelligence people are less likely to believe, the researchers also found.

One of the studies used in Zuckerman's paper was a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with with IQs over 135.

The study began in 1921 and continues today. Even in extreme old age the subjects had much lower levels of religious belief than the average population.

The review, which is the first systematic meta-analysis of the 63 studies conducted in between 1928 and 2012, showed that of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one.

Only two studies showed significant positive correlations and significant negative correlations were seen in a total of 35 studies.

The authors of the review looked at each study independently, taking into account the quality of data collection, the size of the sample and the analysis methods used.

The three psychologists carrying out the review defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”.

Religiosity is defined by the psychologists as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion.

According to the review, other factors - such as gender or education - did not make any difference to the correlation between intelligence and religious belief.

The level of belief, or otherwise, did however vary dependent upon age with the correlation found to be weakest among the pre-college population.

The paper concludes that: "Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme —the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who 'know better'."

Criticisms of the conclusions include that the paper only deals with a definition of analytic intelligence and fails to consider newly identified forms of creative and emotional intelligence.

The psychologists who carried out the review also sought to pre-empt the secularist interpretation of the findings by suggesting that more intelligent people are less likely to have religious beliefs as they associate themselves with ideas around personal control.

"Intelligent people typically spend more time in school - a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits," the researchers wrote.

"More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs."

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Wow Duane, can you share with us how atheism doesn't need to be proven?

huh?

Why do they need to prove non-existence?

Do you need to prove the non-existence of a purple 12 eyed pancake eating monster on Neptune? Do you need to prove the non-existence of leprechauns?

[nareshseep]

viewtopic.php?p=6879261#p6879261

GOD == Alien

The only way for us to explain to theists that there is no GOD is to go back in time.

[Habit7]

Wow Duane, can you share with us how atheism doesn't need to be proven?

huh?

Why do they need to prove non-existence?

Do you need to prove the non-existence of a purple 12 eyed pancake eating monster on Neptune? Do you need to prove the non-existence of leprechauns?

What is the source for the inference that a purple 12 eyed pancake eating monster exist on Neptune? I doubt pancakes can even exist on Neptune because it is 77 K in the upper atmosphere and and where it gets warmer the crushing pressure would destroy them. The truth of its existence not looking too good

And though I have repeatedly told you that leprechauns originate form Irish folklore, it seems like you are the strongest advocate for its possible existence.

You need to do a better job. You say atheism doesn't need to be proven, nareshseep say atheism cannot be proven. Who is right?

[HOPE4ALL]

THESE ARE THE OUT COME WHEN "MAN" believe they are "GOD"


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7681252/ns/he ... gmQRZLVAxR

these things are all written an more to see which is already written.. MAN WRITE ALL THE HOLY BOOKS.. MAIN VIEW IN ALL THESE BOOK, THERE IS A GOD AN THE WAY TO HIM.. ONE HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH ONE IS THE TRUTH...

SO WAS IT IN NOAH DAYS SO WILL IT BE IN THE COMING DAYS OF "SON OF MAN" (CHRIST)....

[nareshseep]

Wow Duane, can you share with us how atheism doesn't need to be proven?

huh?

Why do they need to prove non-existence?

Do you need to prove the non-existence of a purple 12 eyed pancake eating monster on Neptune? Do you need to prove the non-existence of leprechauns?

What is the source for the inference that a purple 12 eyed pancake eating monster exist on Neptune? I doubt pancakes can even exist on Neptune because it is 77 K in the upper atmosphere and and where it gets warmer the crushing pressure would destroy them. The truth of its existence not looking too good

And though I have repeatedly told you that leprechauns originate form Irish folklore, it seems like you are the strongest advocate for its possible existence.

You need to do a better job. You say atheism doesn't need to be proven, nareshseep say atheism cannot be proven. Who is right?

Both views are correct at this point in time.
To the atheist they dont need any proof to prove that there is not a GOD.
Theist need proof that there isn't a GOD (or alien), which atheist cannot give evidence of.

Consider this premise :-
If we are told that there is a big snake somewhere in the deepest ocean.
Is this statement true or false?


N.B.
Atheist do not believe that they are GOD.
Theist who believe in GOD believe in Aliens as well

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

My morality is informed by the Bible,

I never said all of mankind's morality comes from Christianity.

In short, mankind's morality initially comes from God through our conscience.

which one?

The proof for a Creator is the creation, my keyboard, my computer and the internet all has a creator.

But then that brings up the question who created God?

The God of the Bible makes the claim that He is the Creator, one needs to prove Him wrong.

where is the logic in that?

In a court of law "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges", not the other way around.

Have you disproven the God of every other religion, or is that not required?

If one asks for evidence a Creator, the question one needs to ask is if the evidence one requires is even plausible. Because my answer for evidence is that you are living in it.

Greeks could use this argument to say "look there is the Lightning, therefore Zeus did it" and "you can't prove that lightning didn't come from Zeus" since their methods of science was lacking at that time.

"We don't know what did it, therefore God did it" is not a logical explanation.

[nareshseep]

In amazon tribes when a baby is born, is it immediately killed by the mother?
When animals give young do they kill their young?

These folks/animals do not have eastern or western influences... Where do their morality come from?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

You need to do a better job.

I'm not the one with the job to do! You are the one making the claim for what you believe in. You have to make your claim and back it up. I am skeptical of your claim, however it is not my job to disprove you.

If someone says they own a unicorn, then THEY need to provide evidence for their claim. They can't say "well it's an invisible supernatural unicorn that cannot be evidenced in the natural world, but trust me, it's real". We CANNOT default to a position of "well, we can't disprove they don't have a supernatural invisible unicorn, therefore it must exist". That would be illogical.

You say atheism doesn't need to be proven, nareshseep say atheism cannot be proven. Who is right?

it does not matter to me who is right since we do not follow the same doctrine or book. I can only state my position and he can state his.

My take on it is that atheists claim they do not believe there is a God and I don't believe there is an invisible unicorn. I don't think anyone needs to prove anything other than the people making the claim of existence.

You on the other hand, you share the same Bible with rocknrolla. Which one of you are right?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

What is the source for the inference that a purple 12 eyed pancake eating monster exist on Neptune? I doubt pancakes can even exist on Neptune because it is 77 K in the upper atmosphere and and where it gets warmer the crushing pressure would destroy them. The truth of its existence not looking too good

you insist on using physics and science there but throw it out the window when we talk about parting of the sea, young earth geology, star light, and ALL the animals and dinosaurs fitting on a wooden boat just 500 feet long.

it's clearly supernatural pancakes!
I can start writing books about it. I hear people are being inspired already!

you want to take a literal meaning of the Bible but it just does not add up scientifically.

[Habit7]

I fail to see the ambiguity in those 3 quotations

We, occupants of this universe, operate in time (everything must have a beginning and an end). But God creator of this universe and its constituents, is not bound by time (does not have a beginning and an end). Hence God refers to Himself a being eternal thereby not being created or can ever be destroyed. That is why He can say, "In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)" Genesis 1:1 (with my inclusions).

In this very page you said the atheism claim doesn't need to be proven, however you are saying wrt my theism claim the "the necessity of proof" lies with me. If you dont see the ambiguity there then your eyes are closed.
But I have been laying out the proof for +100pgs, in fact you challenged me on that statement when I first wrote it and I answered

Greeks could use this argument to say "look there is the Lightning, therefore Zeus did it" and "you can't prove that lightning didn't come from Zeus" since their methods of science was lacking at that time.

you are recycling more than Capt. Planet

I make specific arguments from occurrences relative to the Bible and Christianity and you extrapolate that to mythology and folklore as if they lie on the same plane and you ignore the very nomenclature of their names which inherently says it is false. You have been doing this for about ten pages, I called you out on it before and I see that you did concede somewhat in saying that the Bible is not a fairy tale, but we are going down the same road again.

It funny how you see my claim that God of Bible needs this insatiable amount of proof (as if I haven't been doing that) but your claim that atheism doesnt need to be proven is your valued and guarded position that I dare not question.

[Habit7]

What is the source for the inference that a purple 12 eyed pancake eating monster exist on Neptune? I doubt pancakes can even exist on Neptune because it is 77 K in the upper atmosphere and and where it gets warmer the crushing pressure would destroy them. The truth of its existence not looking too good

you insist on using physics and science there but throw it out the window when we talk about parting of the sea, young earth geology, star light, and ALL the animals and dinosaurs fitting on a wooden boat just 500 feet long.

it's clearly supernatural pancakes!
I can start writing books about it. I hear people are being inspired already!

you want to take a literal meaning of the Bible but it just does not add up scientifically.

Our knowledge of Neptune is not theoretical it is empirical and has been explored by spacecraft. Sea parting was supernatural, old earth geology is based on uniformitarian theory, starlight is affected by time dilation, and Noah's Ark had more than ample room http://vimeo.com/39458652

Why did you disregard Std 3 Science and claim that at some point in time man was not at the top of the food chain?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

It funny how you see my claim that God of Bible needs this insatiable amount of proof (as if I haven't been doing that) but your claim that atheism doesnt need to be proven is your valued and guarded position that I dare not question.

because you are the one making the claim!

I don't know how much ways you expect me to explain "burden of proof".

[HOPE4ALL]

The Religion Discussion
Moderators: 3ne2nr Mods

MAN WRITE ALL THE HOLY BOOKS.. MAIN VIEW IN ALL THESE BOOK, THERE IS A GOD AN THE WAY TO HIM.. ONE HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH ONE IS THE TRUTH....

SO WAS IT IN NOAH DAYS SO WILL IT BE IN THE COMING DAYS OF "SON OF MAN" (CHRIST)....

ie one must not be reminded of there word / rules then one intelligence is question...

[Habit7]

It funny how you see my claim that God of Bible needs this insatiable amount of proof (as if I haven't been doing that) but your claim that atheism doesnt need to be proven is your valued and guarded position that I dare not question.

because you are the one making the claim!

I don't know how much ways you expect me to explain "burden of proof".

I have been proving the existence of God.

I am just asking you to prove that in all the universe, under every rock, behind every tree, that no God exists.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

It funny how you see my claim that God of Bible needs this insatiable amount of proof (as if I haven't been doing that) but your claim that atheism doesnt need to be proven is your valued and guarded position that I dare not question.

because you are the one making the claim!

I don't know how much ways you expect me to explain "burden of proof".

I have been proving the existence of God.

no you haven't.

You think you are, but all you are doing is bringing psuedo science and calling it Creation Science and expect everyone to swallow it

I am just asking you to prove that in all the universe, under every rock, behind every tree, that no God exists.

why? I'm not the one making the claim here.

does anyone need to prove that in all the universe, under every rock, behind every tree, that no unicorns exist?

[Habit7]

Yes I have. Arguments over Creation is a just a doctrine of Christianity, arguments for the existence of God have been right in front of you but you cant see it because of your confirmation bias viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=13890#p7029094

Should I accept atheism on blind faith?
Unicorns can either be an Indian rhinoceros, an aurochs or a mythical animal (special emphasis on myth).

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Yes I have. Arguments over Creation is a just a doctrine of Christianity, arguments for the existence of God have been right in front of you but you cant see it because of your confirmation bias viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=13890#p7029094

you have been supporting creation science but you're accusing me of confirmation bias?

you keep screaming "conjecture" in the face of large amounts of scientific evidence, my favourite being your absolute surety that the earth is 6000-12000 years old and not billions of years old.

Should I accept atheism on blind faith?

atheism does not require faith. It is a lack of belief. A lack of belief is not "faith".

Unicorns can either be an Indian rhinoceros, an aurochs or a mythical animal (special emphasis on myth).

an Indian rhinoceros is an Indian rhinoceros and an auroch is an auroch. neither are unicorns. Did you check all over the universe, under every rock to confirm that it is indeed a myth and not real?

for the other users who are reading (yes I love to quote from wikipedia because it makes quick research an easy task)

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.

The US Supreme Court [examined legislation] in McLean v. Arkansas, and the ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that creation-science as defined in the act "is simply not science".

The court ruled that creation science failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:

• Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable.
• Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization.
• 'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law.
• Separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory.
• Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science.
• "Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative.

The court further noted that no recognized scientific journal had published any article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Arkansas law, and stated that the testimony presented by defense attributing the absence to censorship was not credible.

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." According to Skeptic, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

[Habit7]

you keep screaming "conjecture" in the face of large amounts of scientific evidence, my favourite being your absolute surety that the earth is 6000-12000 years old and not billions of years old.

I never said that with absolute surety, creationism is what I advocate for, my views on a young earth is as theoretical as yours for an old earth.

YEC dont believe in the Earth being "~6000 years old" they believe in the Earth being not younger than 6000 years and no older than a few thousand years (I have never hear anyone exceed 20,000 years old) Old Earth Creationists believe in a 4 billion year old Earth with whatever configuration each camp has. The fact is the Bible does not dictate the age of the Earth, we can deductively establish the age from within the Bible and back it up with scientific evidence or establish the age outside of the Bible with scientific theory and look for biblical evidence for such a view.

At the end of the day, whether YEC or OEC, Christians believe God created the Earth supernaturally. The difference in views of age of the Earth is no more superficial than Dawkins saying there is faith in science and you disagreeing with him or the Stephen Jay Gould who says there is bias with scientists to the Duane that says scientists aren't biased to the Duane who says scientists are subjective. Nevertheless, Dawkins, Gould, Duane from earlier on in thread and Duane from a couple pages ago all believe in Darwinian Evolution.

Should I accept atheism on blind faith?

atheism does not require faith. It is a lack of belief. A lack of belief is not "faith".

Atheism is not a lack of faith, it is the forcible repudiation of an idea and replacing it with one of a different view. If one truely lacked faith then one would be an agnostic, even Dawkins repudiates views of him being an atheist because it would mean that there is proof that there is no God.

Are you doing what you claim religious ppl do? If atheism is the absolute claim that no God exists, give us proof.


Unicorn means single horned animal from the anterior view or lateral. When it comes to the mythical representations of unicorns, I am an Unicorn agnostic


lets see what Wikipedia says about itself:

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

Wikipedia can be a great tool for learning and researching information. However, as with all reference works, not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased. Many of the general rules of thumb for conducting research apply to Wikipedia, including:
-Always be wary of any one single source (in any medium — web, print, television or radio), or of multiple works that derive from a single source.
-Where articles have references to external sources (whether online or not) read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says.
-In most academic institutions Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, is unacceptable as a source for facts in a research paper. Some encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica have notable authors working for them and may be cited as a secondary source in some cases; institutional policies will vary. For example, Cornell University's online guide to APA style uses citations from Britannica in some of its examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _Wikipedia

If you think that Wikipedia article is an unbiased comment on the issue of Creation Science, then there is a museum in Petersburg, Kentucky you should visit.

Why is it when I ask you to defend your point you deflect to my view on age of the earth or creation? Whether I am wrong or not, atheism needs to have an argument for it truth as much as theism. We cannot all accept that there is no God based on the innate feelings of some.

[HOPE4ALL]

god wake everyone up in 2011, just the world distracted you.. " yea rite "
everyone has a number of 111... " still dont understand "
add the last 2 number of the year anyone were born up until 1999 to the age they will have been in 2011...
i know " why until 1999 " ???

DO YOU NEED TO PROVE AIR????? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

THIS SITE AN THREAD IS LIKE..... JOKESSSSS

[Habit7]

wait for Ravi Zacharias' response


“Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close!
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close!
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be finely tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close!
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not “religious thought?” Close enough!
Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close to being close!
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough!
Is anything within the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark!
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on!”

The Devils Delusion
David Berlinski

[nareshseep]

wait for Ravi Zacharias' response

“Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close!

Has anyone provided a proof of God's existence?
He has probably existed, but has died many moons ago.

And I repeat again...

Consider this premise :-
If we are told that there is a big snake somewhere in the deepest ocean.
Is this statement true or false?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Why is it when I ask you to defend your point you deflect to my view on age of the earth or creation? Whether I am wrong or not, atheism needs to have an argument for it truth as much as theism. We cannot all accept that there is no God based on the innate feelings of some.

should everyone accept your God because of your innate feelings?

I don't care what you have faith in as long as you don't try to pass it off as fact and insist everyone else takes it as fact. I keep coming back to your young earth creation view because it remains your steadfast view despite large amounts of scientific evidence that refutes it.

[Habit7]

wait for Ravi Zacharias' response



“Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close!

Has anyone provided a proof of God's existence?

Matter, time and design must come from an immaterial, eternal and intelligent source. Science cannot prove of disprove this because it studies only what is material, observable and repeatable. The subject of who or what this source is is the study of theology. To absolutely claim that this source doesnt exists (atheism) requires proof that matter, time and design can bring itself into existence from nothing.

Why is it when I ask you to defend your point you deflect to my view on age of the earth or creation? Whether I am wrong or not, atheism needs to have an argument for it truth as much as theism. We cannot all accept that there is no God based on the innate feelings of some.

should everyone accept your God because of your innate feelings?

I don't care what you have faith in as long as you don't try to pass it off as fact and insist everyone else takes it as fact. I keep coming back to your young earth creation view because it remains your steadfast view despite large amounts of scientific evidence that refutes it.

The difference is that I have and I am ready to proof my Christian theism. I do it without pointing to my innate feeling.

To say that atheism's claims dont require proof goes way past factual analysis, zooms by religious presupposition and lands on the island of blind faith. Atheism might be innately obvious to you but in order to compete in the marketplace of ideas you need to prove your point.

...or are you making a claim that rises above the requirement of validation

[nareshseep]

wait for Ravi Zacharias' response

“Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close!

Has anyone provided a proof of God's existence?

Matter, time and design must come from an immaterial, eternal and intelligent source. Science cannot prove of disprove this because it studies only what is material, observable and repeatable. The subject of who or what this source is is the study of theology. To absolutely claim that this source doesnt exists (atheism) requires proof that matter, time and design can bring itself into existence from nothing.

Matter time and design did not need to come from an immaterial, eternal and intelligent source. Or probably it did.. We will never know. Could it be that matter has already existed and will always exist. There is no beginning and there will be no end. We come up with theories to try to explain the effects of what we are seeing. Some pass the test of time, some come up short. We call some of these theories religion and once there are societies... there will always be religion. And so we mix religion and politics... " Mark 12:17 - Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" . The fact remains people need to be controlled. Why was it important to slave masters to convert the slaves to Christianity? Was their religion not good enough... though it served their needs for countless generation before them?

The only reason there may be a perceived rise in theism is because of a side effect of the rise of freedom which is giving folks free will to believe in whatever they choose. This free voice will soon come to an end because this has the power to topple governments. Therefore the internet will soon be restricted and regulated. Freedom is dangerous, isn't this not what the books tells us? Everyone cannot be atheists, for not all can cannot handle it, or have the morality to stand on thier own two feet and seek the answers for themselves. The weak minded will run amock. So we will keep them in order with the good books. Though you may fight down the atheist, the atheist will fight for the theists right to express their views. Vice-versa is something that you will never see happen. A theist will never fight for the rights of atheists.

For my theists friends... because you have given me something to believe in ... to be not like you all.

[Habit7]

Well even as you quote Mark 12:17 you need to all pay attention to what you render to God. And all of what God requires of you is summarised a little later in Mark 12:28-31 What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.

But the reality is that if you are like the rest of us here on this earth, you haven't rendered unto God what He requires, and He will judge us for our failure to do this, and that is Hell. But God being rich in mercy, sent the Son, who is a person of the Godhead as a man, to live the sinless life we failed to live. And He submitted Himself according to the foreknown plan of God to die as a sacrifice for the sin of man. Their sin would be placed on Him and He will receive their punishment, and His righteousness would be placed on them and they will receive adoption. He not only died but He rose again to new life. So that if one repents of their sin and puts their faith in His work for the forgiveness of their sins, His actions would be made efficacious to them. In addition not only would their sins be forgiven, but they will have a new mind with new desires to truly please God, just as Christ rose to new life.

During Christ's life He warned of false converts, the wheat and the tares, the sheep and the goats, the wise and the foolish, in parables and even explicitly. There are many who call themselves Christians and fail to demonstrate a new life in their actions. If one professes to be "saved" (from God's punishment) and yet lives a lifestyle of continual unrepentant sin, there is no assurance of their salvation, and quite likely it proves that they are a false convert.

You, I and even Brett Michaels don't just need something to believe in, we need something true to believe in. Jesus Christ said I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.


p.s. Actually the trend is that in historically theistic countries like Western Europe, atheism has risen with the theists protecting the right for them to express their views. Conversely in regimes that have adopted atheism (USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam) there has been and is currently in some cases serious restrictions on individual's right to worship, especially for Christians.

[MG Man]

Joshua: one horrible tale of mass genocide

[HOPE4ALL]

The Religion Discussion
Moderators: 3ne2nr Mods

KALI PUJA

can some one explain this please..cause i really will like my views on this curve..







AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SYMBOL ON HINDU TEMPLES

[Habit7]

Disclaimer: These are not the views of Habit7. These are the views of a writer for the UK Telegraph who is also an atheist.

That being said...

How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet
By Brendan O'Neill Religion
Last updated: August 14th, 2013



When did atheists become so teeth-gratingly annoying? Surely non-believers in God weren't always the colossal pains in the collective backside that they are today? Surely there was a time when you could say to someone "I am an atheist" without them instantly assuming you were a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks given to making pseudo-clever statements like, "Well, Leviticus also frowns upon having unkempt hair, did you know that?" Things are now so bad that I tend to keep my atheism to myself, and instead mumble something about being a very lapsed Catholic if I'm put on the spot, for fear that uttering the A-word will make people think I'm a Dawkins drone with a mammoth superiority complex and a hives-like allergy to nurses wearing crucifixes.

These days, barely a week passes without the emergence of yet more evidence that atheists are the most irritating people on Earth. Last week we had the spectacle of Dawkins and his slavish Twitter followers (whose adherence to Dawkins' diktats makes those Kool-Aid-drinking Jonestown folk seem level-headed in comparison) boring on about how stupid Muslims are. This week we've been treated to new scientific research claiming to show that atheists are cleverer than religious people. I say scientific. I say research. It is of course neither; it's just a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories. Not unlike the Bible. But that hasn't stopped the atheistic blogosphere and Twitterati from effectively saying, "See? Told you we were brainier than you Bible-reading numbskulls."

Atheists online are forever sharing memes about how stupid religious people are. I know this because some of my best Facebook friends are atheists. There's even a website called Atheist Meme Base, whose most popular tags tell you everything you need to know about it and about the kind of people who borrow its memes to proselytise about godlessness to the ignorant: "indoctrination", "Christians", "funny", "hell", "misogyny", "scumbag God", "logic". Atheists in the public sphere spend their every tragic waking hour doing little more than mocking the faithful. In the words of Robin Wright, they seem determined “to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers”. To that end if you ever have the misfortune, as I once did, to step foot into an atheistic get-together, which are now common occurrences in the Western world, patronised by people afflicted with repetitive strain injury from so furiously patting themselves on the back for being clever, you will witness unprecedented levels of intellectual smugness and hostility towards hoi polloi.

So, what’s gone wrong with atheism? The problem isn’t atheism itself, of course, which is just non-belief, a nothing, a lack of something. Rather it is the transformation of this nothing into an identity, into the basis of one’s outlook on life, which gives rise to today’s monumentally annoying atheism. The problem with today’s campaigning atheists is that they have turned their absence of belief in God into the be-all and end-all of their personality. Which is bizarre. Atheism merely signals what you don’t believe in, not what you do believe in. It’s a negative. And therefore, basing your entire worldview on it is bound to generate immense amounts of negativity. Where earlier generations of the Godless viewed their atheism as a pretty minor part of their personality, or at most as the starting point of their broader identity as socialists or humanists or whatever, today’s ostentatiously Godless folk constantly declare “I am an atheist!” as if that tells you everything you need to know about a person, when it doesn’t. The utter hollowness of this transformation of a nothing into an identity is summed up by the fact that some American atheists now refer to themselves as “Nones” – that is, their response to the question “What is your religious affiliation?” is “None”. Okay, big deal, you don’t believe in God, well done. But what do you believe in?

Today’s atheism-as-identity is really about absolving oneself of the tough task of explaining what one is for, what one loves, what one has faith in, in favour of the far easier and fun pastime of saying what one is against and what one hates. An identity based on a nothing will inevitably be a quite hostile identity, sometimes viciously so, particularly towards opposite identities that are based on a something – in this case on a belief in God. There is a very thin line between being a None and a nihilist; after all, if your whole identity is based on not believing in something, then why give a damn about anything?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brend ... he-planet/

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ really? it's a big problem that people are smug?

flip the coin - cause I always like looking at both sides:

It can also be said that religious people have annoyed alot of society for eternity! Pushing their own religion and personal beliefs on others and claiming they will burn in hell if they don't follow them. Then they try to get their beliefs taught in school and lobby to have their beliefs made into laws of the state. Roaming crusades tents, loud speakers, ringing home door bells. Then there is the war and fighting, this sect over the other, this belief over the other, killing, bombing and bloodshed, all in the name of God. But lets claim being smug is more annoying. Right.

Religious people see atheists as being devil worshipers, immoral etc etc and that atheists are pushing their "religion" or "faith" on others.

"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby"