(August 11, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Michael Wrote: In terms of access to information, I don't think the internet has given us the great shift that occurred with the moveable type printing press. If people are interested in knowledge then books have been a good source for the last 500 years, and perhaps encouraged a deeper knowledge than the often 'short and shallow' type of knowledge communicated on the internet. I tip my hat to public libraries before the internet.

So, no. If anything the internet just seems to have shortened attention spans and dumbed-down the discussion, present company excluded of course :-) I don't see it as greatly changing people's views, or at least not more than books and libraries used to anyway.

Am I sounding old? :-)

Even the movable type printing press, which did wonders for the Reformation and helped finally broke the domination of the Catholic Church over Europe, could not possibly have delivered information as fast and concisely as the Internet does now. Of course that brings downsides, but there is a strong correlation between the rise of the Internet and the rise of irreligion in the West and Australia.

You can put most of the blame on the Internet, as far as I'm concerned. People were given access to the truth outside of their little hometowns and were able to find more and more people questioning their own path. The harder you look at organized religions the harder it becomes too continue to believe in the bullshit they're throwing around.

(August 13, 2014 at 5:38 pm)StealthySkeptic Wrote: Even the movable type printing press, which did wonders for the Reformation and helped finally broke the domination of the Catholic Church over Europe, could not possibly have delivered information as fast and concisely as the Internet does now. Of course that brings downsides, but there is a strong correlation between the rise of the Internet and the rise of irreligion in the West and Australia.

I doubt the internet accounts for all that rise. Better education generally, better standards of living, and greater mobility are all taking a toll. Where the internet helps most I think is in giving atheist a safe place to speak.

Quote: Downey has found three factors—the drop in religious upbringing, the increase in college-level education and the increase in Internet use—that together explain about 50 percent of the drop in religious affiliation.

But what of the other 50 percent? In the data, the only factor that correlates with this is date of birth—people born later are less likely to have a religious affiliation. But as Downey points out, year of birth cannot be a causal factor. “So about half of the observed change remains unexplained,” he says.

So that leaves us with a mystery. The drop in religious upbringing and the increase in Internet use seem to be causing people to lose their faith. But something else about modern life that is not captured in this data is having an even bigger impact.

How the Internet Is Taking Away America’s Religion

I'm very thankful for the internet. I became religious overnight because of an open mind and the internet. I found out there were many other crucified saviors, virgin births, <miracles such as: turning water into wine, walking on water, raising people from the dead>, similar birth/preaching/resurrection scenarios that were similar to Jesus before his alleged birth. I was intelligent enough not to believe something when I first read it. I continued with my research to confirm these facts. I could hack through all the BS and learn some new things. I had all the contradictions and all the evil in the bible and in other holy books in 5 seconds thanks to google. I had the verses so I could look them up for myself, put them into context myself, and make up my own mind. If people have an open mind and are willing to question their ridiculous faith, then Yes, the internet helps tremendously to destroy religion.

Out of interest Eel, did you validate those things you read on the internet? And, if so, how? Let's take crucified saviours for example ... Who were they? Where did the information come from? And how did you know it was sufficiently reliable to be trusted?

Yeah, those alleged parallels have been floating about the internet for years, but they end up being false or very superficial. When I started this it was Bacchus, then it was Mithra, lately Horus/Osiris is in fashion.

All of the stories surrounding characters such as Osiris/Mithra et al have equal validity to the one of Jesus.

OP...YES

It was the foundation of my learning that opened my eyes. Without it we only hear what they tell us in church...pass the basket and keep the faith!

(August 14, 2014 at 8:02 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: All of the stories surrounding characters such as Osiris/Mithra et al have equal validity to the one of Jesus.

May I ask, how did you determine that validity?

(August 14, 2014 at 8:54 am)Michael Wrote:

(August 14, 2014 at 8:02 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: All of the stories surrounding characters such as Osiris/Mithra et al have equal validity to the one of Jesus.

May I ask, how did you determine that validity?

The only stories of Jesus are claims made in the bible (there is no other mention of Jesus until well, well after his supposed death).

The only stores of divine beings are claims made in given holytexts/mythologies.

Ergo they are equally as (in)valid as one another.

I must note that I hold the Jesus story to have no validity. As the bible is a claim and not evidence, and the only account of Jesus is told through the books of the bible, until there is additional evidence to back up the claim I dismiss the story, as logic dictates.

If I may also ask, I presume you hold the Jesus mythology to be factually accurate. How did you determine that validity?