Talking Religion...

[cincibuck]

That's all very interesting, and irrelevant. You obviously missed the point that I was talking about Christians not taking their bible as seriously as Muslims in regards to what their books say about sex.

If they did, we would see Christians stoning people for adultery in downtown Cleveland, which to date hasn't been happening:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10

To which I would agree, but that's only one part of what you said:

The difference is christians don't take their book as seriously as muslims, which begs a different set of philosophical questions about religious faith. Is your book of choice "holy" or not?

I don't know if American's would take to the streets if the Taliban were to have a Bible roast in downtown Kabul, but they'd sure light up the internet.

I don't know if we are witnessing a swing of the cultural pendulum back toward our evangelical/puritanical past, but it feels like it to me.

Why would you reference a Gallup poll from 1997? They conduct religious polls every year and the overwhelming trend the last few decades is that fewer people identify themselves with a specific church or sect and the fastest growing segment is "none".

But at the same time:

Most of the growth in the Christian population occurred among those who would identify only as "Christian," "Evangelical/Born Again," or "non-denominational Christian." The last of these, associated with the growth of megachurches, has increased from less than 200,000 in 1990 to 2.5 million in 2001 to over 8 million today. These groups grew from 5 percent of the population in 1990 to 8.5 percent in 2001 to 11.8 percent in 2008. Significantly, 38.6 percent of mainline Protestants now also identify themselves as evangelical or born again. US News, 2009

Which says to me that of those not declaring "none" for religion, the move is clearly toward evangelical/born again churches, and if I understand the rest of the article correctly, some of those who claimed "none" in the past and being drawn to evangelical/born again ... i.e. they're going through a period of discernment after having "left" a mainstream religion.

IMO watching what's happened to the GOP since 1988, it would seem that it's not just religion that has moved to the evangelical side of the street, politics has too.

 

[Brewtus]

Most of the growth in the Christian population occurred among those who would identify only as "Christian," "Evangelical/Born Again," or "non-denominational Christian." The last of these, associated with the growth of megachurches, has increased from less than 200,000 in 1990 to 2.5 million in 2001 to over 8 million today. These groups grew from 5 percent of the population in 1990 to 8.5 percent in 2001 to 11.8 percent in 2008. Significantly, 38.6 percent of mainline Protestants now also identify themselves as evangelical or born again. US News, 2009

So essentially Christians have been migrating from more traditional churches and sects to non-denominational megachurches that have more of a modern interpretation of the Bible. But still the overall trend is that fewer people identify themselves as Christian and more are becoming non-religious.

I don't know if we are witnessing a swing of the cultural pendulum back toward our evangelical/puritanical past, but it feels like it to me.

I see the complete opposite. While it seems that there is a very outspoken minority of evangelical Christians that receive a disproportionate amount of media attention, I feel that the cultural pendulum is swinging toward "Christians" who only attend services at Christmas and Easter or are only into the church because of their children or for social/community reasons but don't really believe in the church teachings themselves.

Maybe we just hang out with very different crowds, but most of my friends, family and coworkers are either casually religious or atheist.

 

[Taosman]

One day science may prove the existence of God. But until that day as long as people still question why there is suffering and how an all powerful, loving God could allow it, there will be more and more doubt.

"Which reminds me of a story I heard years ago on the radio. The speaker was an American Indian and I cannot recall his name or the context of the broadcast but I do remember he spoke about his father. Each night his father went through a long ritual of praying and paying tribute to Gods. Lots of them from all manner of religions and cultures; Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, and more as well as the spirits that inhabit the world of some aboriginal people. One night after his father had finished his ritual the son asked, "Do you really believe in all of that?" And his father answered, "I don't believe any of it. But I could be wrong."

 

[Taosman]

They need to invest in some Watt Puppies.

Since most here don't know.

Current price is over $30k a pair. I've never owned a car worth $30k!!!!!

 

[Brewtus]

One day science may prove the existence of God. But until that day as long as people still question why there is suffering and how an all powerful, loving God could allow it, there will be more and more doubt.

Most atheists lack a belief in God not because there is suffering in the world but because there isn't sufficient evidence to believe a God exists.

 

[Gatorubet]

Most atheists lack a belief in God not because there is suffering in the world but because they see insufficient evidence to believe a God exists.

FIFY

Brewtus, much like those claiming the existence of God because they see inescapable evidence of a Creator, their conclusion is driven more by perception of the universe than by any empirical evidence contained within it.

Which is all to say, your views are just as valid as any Christian or Hindu who sees things differently. I guess that is where "faith" appears as a component. The older I get the more certain I get that there is a Higher Power, and the less certain I am that any one religion or denomination has the one interpretation or answer.

 

[Brewtus]

Brewtus, much like those claiming the existence of God because they see inescapable evidence of a Creator, their conclusion is driven more by perception of the universe than by any empirical evidence contained within it.

Which is all to say, your views are as just valid as any Christian or Hindu who sees things differently. I guess that is where "faith" appears as a component. The older I get the more certain I get that there is a Higher Power, and the less certain I am that any one religion or denomination has the one interpretation or answer.

No, our views are not equally valid. Believing that something is true based on "faith" or some gut feeling or personal revelation is not equivalent to a belief based on empirical evidence. How have you become "more certain" that there is a Higher Power. Why do you believe that?

 

[Gatorubet]

No, our views are not equally valid.

Dude. You should really think about joining a religion. You've mastered most of it already. :p

 

[Brewtus]

Dude. You should really think about joining a religion. You've mastered most of it already. :p

Nah, the difference is that my beliefs can change based on new evidence. I fully admit that if sufficient evidence were provided, I would believe that a God exists. How many theists can admit that they could hypothetically be convinced (with sufficient evidence and argument) that a God doesn't exist?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Dude. You should really think about joining a religion. You've mastered most of it already. :p

Nah, the difference is that my beliefs can change based on new evidence. I fully admit that if sufficient evidence were provided, I would believe that a God exists. How many theists can admit that they could hypothetically be convinced (with sufficient evidence and argument) that a God doesn't exist?

Sorry Brewtus, but you sound like a lot of the True Believers I know on my side. The only difference between the two is what constitutes "sufficient".

 

[Brewtus]

Sorry Brewtus, but you sound like a lot of the True Believers I know on my side. The only difference between the two is what constitutes "sufficient".

As it's been said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and references to ancient manuscripts or personal revelation would not constitute "sufficient" to any skeptical rational person.

 

[buckeyegrad]

As it's been said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and references to ancient manuscripts or personal revelation would not constitute "sufficient" to any skeptical rational person.

And like I said, there is disagreement on what is "sufficient".

Simply attaching undefined words like "extraordinary", "skeptical" and "rational' to it does not establish a neutral, value-free definition. In other words, valuing one paradigm by the assumptions of another gets us no where.

 

[Brewtus]

And like I said, there is disagreement on what is "sufficient".

Simply attaching undefined words like "extraordinary", "skeptical" and "rational' to it does not establish a neutral, value-free definition. In other words, valuing one paradigm by the assumptions of another gets us no where.

Very well then, the same can be said for the terms "religion" and "God" which are usually defined differently by each believer. But that still doesn't relieve someone who is proposing a belief (whether it be that the sun is the center of the solar system, that Bigfoot exists or that there is a God) to provide a valid reason to think that it's true if they want to be taken seriously.

 

[BB73]

Maybe we just hang out with very different crowds, but most of my friends, family and coworkers are either casually religious or atheist.

I'm guessing there are a fair amount of agnostics in that crowd as well.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Very well then, the same can be said for the terms "religion" and "God" which are usually defined differently by each believer. But that still doesn't relieve someone who is proposing a belief (whether it be that the sun is the center of the solar system, that Bigfoot exists or that there is a God) to provide a valid reason to think that it's true if they want to be taken seriously.

Of course it works both ways. But to suggest that all sides aren't working with ontological assumptions that can't be proven is in error. Also, we need to acknowledge our biases in what we consider reasonable evidence, rational thinking, and extraordinary leaps of logic.

Doesn't mean that recognizing these differences makes any position more or less true--after all, I recognize my biases, and even the possibility I could be wrong, but I still hold God's existence as an absolute truth as I've yet to see or experience anything that would suggest otherwise. We just need to realize that none of us, at least on our own merits individually or collectively, have a privileged view of reality.