I have a question.

As many of you admit, the philosophical arguments for the existence of God works best for those that already have a propensity to believe in God (raised that way, exposed through family or friends, or an evangelist ministry of some kind that resonated with them or met their needs in other ways). In that way, the arguments provide affirmation of what they believe to be true from other sources.

I have seen first hand, that apologetics in the last 10 years is on a HUGE upswing in churches. Almost every church has a periodic class or a study looking through the philosophical arguments, reviewing those things that science can't explain, picking apart scientism and pointing out the logical implications of such a belief system. It is great sport to pick apart Dawkins and other spokesmen of the "New Atheist" movement. I wonder if Dawkins et al efforts have not actually been counter-productive and instead galvanized the church into much needed education. 

If 90% of the world believes in God and 31% (and growing) are Christians, it seems that your "there is no evidence for God" theme is not getting out. Include the above observation that the philosophical arguments will be more effective in this group anyway, and it seems unlikely to change. I am not mocking you, I simply want to know what you think will happen in the future. Do you think science will provide some sort of answer(s) to combat the huge imbalance (it sure doesn't look like it is going to be philosophy)? If science, what things in particular might make a difference?

Meh, time.  For example..one day, the believers of -X- will look back on your barbaric religion and scoff at you for having ever believed it to begin with.  There will still be folks like me, too, reminding those new believers that their shit is the same old shit as your shit was.

(December 11, 2015 at 5:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: I have a question.

As many of you admit, the philosophical arguments for the existence of God works best for those that already have a propensity to believe in God (raised that way, exposed through family or friends, or an evangelist ministry of some kind that resonated with them or met their needs in other ways). In that way, the arguments provide affirmation of what they believe to be true from other sources.

I have seen first hand, that apologetics in the last 10 years is on a HUGE upswing in churches. Almost every church has a periodic class or a study looking through the philosophical arguments, reviewing those things that science can't explain, picking apart scientism and pointing out the logical implications of such a belief system. It is great sport to pick apart Dawkins and other spokesmen of the "New Atheist" movement. I wonder if Dawkins et al efforts have not actually been counter-productive and instead galvanized the church into much needed education. 

If 90% of the world believes in God and 31% (and growing) are Christians, it seems that your "there is no evidence for God" theme is not getting out. Include the above observation that the philosophical arguments will be more effective in this group anyway, and it seems unlikely to change. I am not mocking you, I simply want to know what you think will happen in the future. Do you think science will provide some sort of answer(s) to combat the huge imbalance (it sure doesn't look like it is going to be philosophy)? If science, what things in particular might make a difference?

Where are you getting that 90% of the world believes in god? 
Arguments are arguments. They don't prove anything. 

Try again.

(December 11, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: Where are you getting that 90% of the world believes in god? 
Arguments are arguments. They don't prove anything. 

Try again.

Wikipedia: Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 11% of the world's population

The rest of your post does not make any sense. 

I think the arguments of both sides are evolving. New atheism was hugely effective, and now religious people are, predictably, responding by trying to adapt and come up with better arguments (or at least learn the arguments) for their position. Well, our side is adapting too. Atheists are also figuring out which arguments are good and bad, which approaches work or don't. In the end I think we will move slowly, in a see-saw pattern, toward the truth as long as open dialog continues to be permitted (which we are in some danger of, given the PC crisis).

(December 11, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, time.  For example..one day, the believers of -X- will look back on your barbaric religion and scoff at you for having ever believed it to begin with.   There will still be folks like me, too, reminding those new believers that their shit is the same old shit as your shit was.

How much time? It has been 150 years since Darwin and 130 years since Nietzsche declared "God is Dead". There are literally billions of more people that believe in God. 

You don't believe the things that christians believed 150 years ago.  There are billions of people who don't believe the things about god (gods) that people believed 150 years ago. You seem to think that more change than is already ongoing would be required to achieve an end...why? I don't personally think that religion is ever going to go away, just keep changing. It can hardly help it..........it's made of people, lol. Change for the better is, to my mind, combating religion and superstition. 150 years ago plenty of folks believed god "poofed" us into existence magically. Today, christians don't have too much trouble accepting that we are evolved, not created as is ala genesis or through tinkering magic.

You might, but that has nothing to do with your being a christian, you're just a moron. Excuse me, excuse me, a protestent.....I lapsed into my native tongue, the word I was looking for was protestant, not moron.

(December 11, 2015 at 5:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: If 90% of the world believes in God and 31% (and growing) are Christians, it seems that your "there is no evidence for God" theme is not getting out.

That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many people believe in God, that doesn't change the fact that the evidence is absent.

Is it really so ridiculous to claim that there's almost certainly no evidence for God until it is provided? And that the whole "God" claim is absurd and requires absurd amounts of evidence and it doesn't even have any? Would you think it was ridiculous for me to say the same of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

(December 11, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Amine Wrote: I think the arguments of both sides are evolving. New atheism was hugely effective, and now religious people are, predictably, responding by trying to adapt and come up with better arguments (or at least learn the arguments) for their position. Well, our side is adapting too. Atheists are also figuring out which arguments are good and bad, which approaches work or don't. In the end I think we will move slowly, in a see-saw pattern, toward the truth as long as open dialog continues to be permitted (which we are in some danger of, given the PC crisis).

How are any of the arguments evolving in say the last 50 years? These arguments have been debated for centuries.

Rather than changing the personal beliefs of people, I'd prefer to see more education and skepticism instead. Whether the former follows the latter doesn't concern me as long as the aforementioned individuals don't impose their beliefs on others. Why does it matter if someone belives in a god or not if they keep it to themselves? It would make a great difference if we lived in a more educated and more reasonable world, on the other hand.