Religon Influence Fading

[got tonkaed]

id agree with both of the previous two posts.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think it's pretty clear that religious influence is waining in the public arena, but not the personal one. The religious right twice championed a president who is/was utterly innept, and now there is some embarrassment. These people don't want to be seen this way again.

[mpjh]

Yeah, nobody likes having their faith so closely associated with a complete loser like Bush.

[Backglass]

a lot of people who "don't believe in God", ie by definition, atheists, just don't care, or don't think about it, etc.

Hey that's me!

[PLAYER57832]

I think it's pretty clear that religious influence is waining in the public arena, but not the personal one. The religious right twice championed a president who is/was utterly innept, and now there is some embarrassment. These people don't want to be seen this way again.

You have to distinguish between religous belief and following a particular church. Some people are moving away from a particular church, but embrace various forms of belief and faith. Also, Christian churches in particular are experiencing changes. Change perhaps as fundamental as that of the Reformation, though thankfully less traumatic.

[Snorri1234]

Right. Because I do agree with GT on one thing: a lot of people who "don't believe in God", ie by definition, atheists, just don't care, or don't think about it, etc. That could certainly constitute a "lack of belief" - it's not just a negative claim, it's almost no claim at all.

I did think about it, quite a few times even. I've been confronted with death quite a few times (today actually, yay for working at a nursing-home) and every time I thought about religion and God but always concluded that it was bollocks.

But yet I say that I lack belief (in religion that is). I say that Atheism is not a religion, even though I could use the definition of religion to say that my beliefs are a religion. But the fundamental difference between atheism and religion is that atheism is not a viewpoint but a starting point. I am atheist and have formed my beliefs from that, using my own or other people's reasoning to come to my views. Atheism is basically a blank slate that you fill in. There are no axioms that you must hold as true in it, you simply start from the most basic, logical starting point that has no a priori stuff.

[mpjh]

I agree almost totally. I think that there is a real (as opposed to a metaphysical) world that i wish to explore using science. That is my starting point.

[Napoleon Ier]

I agree almost totally. I think that there is a real (as opposed to a metaphysical) world that i wish to explore using science. That is my starting point.

Endlessly re-iterating your arguments in ever more tortuous forms to justify the same pre-conceived conclusion isn't science, it's sophistry.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree almost totally. I think that there is a real (as opposed to a metaphysical) world that i wish to explore using science. That is my starting point.

Endlessly re-iterating your arguments in ever more tortuous forms to justify the same pre-conceived conclusion isn't science, it's sophistry.

Irony ... anyone?

[Napoleon Ier]

I agree almost totally. I think that there is a real (as opposed to a metaphysical) world that i wish to explore using science. That is my starting point.

Endlessly re-iterating your arguments in ever more tortuous forms to justify the same pre-conceived conclusion isn't science, it's sophistry.

Irony ... anyone?

No. Irony no-one. When the best facts we have change, so does my mind.

You may not like the conclusions science comes up with. You may not believe economics is a science.

The fact remains, it is, and comes up with theories that can explain the real world phenomena we observe and can even provide solutions to some them we perceive as being problematic. You may not like those solutions because of some anecdotal experience you've had in your sphere of existence, but those don't count as science (and nor do those that the bloke down t'pub told you he had either)/

[Backglass]

I agree almost totally. I think that there is a real (as opposed to a metaphysical) world that i wish to explore using science. That is my starting point.

Endlessly re-iterating your arguments in ever more tortuous forms to justify the same pre-conceived conclusion isn't science, it's sophistry.

Irony ... anyone?

He will never see the irony. He always right and MUCH smarter than anyone here. Just ask him!

[Napoleon Ier]

No, I'm just pretty sure I'm right when it comes to the fact the US never "openly" and "directly" aided Pol Pot during the Vietnam war, to the fact that Stalin did slaughter millions of his own people, and that Mao was less than a pleasant chap.

[mpjh]

Why don't you repeat it again, nappy, maybe then it will be come true. Oh, and by the way, if you just believe it, then you can fly, of course it helps if Tinkerbell sprinkles some dust on you.

[MeDeFe]

Imagine Mao in the Pleasant Chaps...

[Napoleon Ier]

Why don't you repeat it again, nappy, maybe then it will be come true. Oh, and by the way, if you just believe it, then you can fly, of course it helps if Tinkerbell sprinkles some dust on you.

Well, no. It always was true, and anyone with anything more than a fucking A-level in history can tell you that it is.

The above is your position, since you accept as a matter of faith that a fellow atheist and communist cannot possibly be wrong, unless aided by the Americans.

Basically, you deny the Stalinist democide, and you do so on faith, refusing to post any evidence or to address any of that given on any other grounds than that "it's propaganda". So, you don't get to call me irrational when I present perfectly sensible arguments for every single one of my positions.

[mpjh]

You know, nappy, repeating the same thing over and over is trolling.

[Martin Ronne]

Based on mpjhs last post, I think you win nappy. It's useless trying to argue any further with a half wit. Wait, no, a 2/3 wit. Yeah, that way you take away the w and just have it.

[Backglass]

Based on mpjhs last post, I think you win nappy. It's useless trying to argue any further with a half wit. Wait, no, a 2/3 wit. Yeah, that way you take away the w and just have it.

Careful Martin...if you inflate his incredibly large head any further, explosion is a real possibility.

[jonesthecurl]

Based on mpjhs last post, I think you win nappy. It's useless trying to argue any further with a half wit. Wait, no, a 2/3 wit. Yeah, that way you take away the w and just have it.

Careful Martin...if you inflate his incredibly large head any further, explosion is a real possibility.

He's clever though ain't he. Bright, persuasive, handsome, witty, (is it working yet?)

[MeDeFe]

Based on mpjhs last post, I think you win nappy. It's useless trying to argue any further with a half wit. Wait, no, a 2/3 wit. Yeah, that way you take away the w and just have it.

Careful Martin...if you inflate his incredibly large head any further, explosion is a real possibility.

He's clever though ain't he. Bright, persuasive, handsome, witty, (is it working yet?)

Talented, original, eloquent, perceptive, (Not sure, I'll help)

[jonesthecurl]

Tall, um, good dress sense, um, always right, um...

[Napoleon Ier]

Possessing a head in perfect proportion to the rest of his body?

[Martin Ronne]

I'm going to have to say no to the handsome, well dressed and possessing a head proportionate to my body. Also, I'm only 6 foot.

[MeDeFe]

I'm going to have to say no to the handsome, well dressed and possessing a head proportionate to my body. Also, I'm only 6 foot.

You know Nappy in rl?

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm going to have to say no to the handsome, well dressed and possessing a head proportionate to my body. Also, I'm only 6 foot.

You know Nappy in rl?

No. He doesn't.