Future of Christianity in US

[Mr Greene]

Esquilax: what is reality? The scientists have made the decision for themselves at some time that the Bible is right and is to be trusted along with science. On the other hand some humanists have made the decision that there exists a natural explanation for everything. And so this view will shape the way that they look at origins science. Should the scientists back up to the time before they decided to trust the Bible? Can a humanist back up to the time before which he decided that there is a natural explanation for everything? Is that possible? Can anyone truly be intellectually honest? What are the sources of truth by which one can determine reality? Reason? Science? If there were something supernatural how would one know?

---

... Stepping away from Christianity, let's take the example of the show on TV called long island medium. Is this all made up? Is it an elaborate scheme? Is there a natural explanation?

If the scriptures were accurate they would be irrelevant.
The fact is that they are directly contradicted by the physical evidence all the way till circa ~450BC.
You claim to be a PHd student, that implies you can do academic research. The data is there, the evidence is damning; The jews lied through their teeth. There never was a monotheistic kingdom of Isreal or Judah, no Egyptian plagues, no flood, just a bunch of middle eastern con-artists.

[JonDarbyXIII]

...
He may be intelligent; he may have an extensive education; but he is not educated.

How do you define educated? Maybe you mean he didn't apply critical thinking to his beliefs? Or maybe you mean his education wasn't relevant to evaluating his beliefs? (There are lots of areas of learning.)

Certainly an education is not always relevant to beliefs. I have heard theists and atheists alike note that someone may have a PhD, but that doesn't mean they know anything more than the average person about any subject that is outside of that field (and often a very specified point on which they wrote their dissertation.)

When I said someone can have an extensive education but still not be educated, I mean more along the lines that someone can sit in any number of classrooms and still not have an 'education.' There are schools that are specifically geared towards teaching Intelligent Design (Creationism-lite) at the expense of evolution. I don't think these people are really educating themselves. Plus, even if they go to a school that does teach true science, there is no guarantee that they are absorbing the material for a longer duration than the class period or that they were applying those much-needed critical thinking skills.

[Mister Agenda]

Why is it assumed that as education increases, Christianity will decrease?

It isn't assumed. It's observed.

That the population of Christians is less intelligent that atheists?

There's a slight difference, but it doesn't figure into whether Christianity will increase or decrease, and the difference is likely to shrink as the number of atheists increases.

Are there not dumb Christians and dumb atheists?

Yes indeed.

As education increases, intolerance will decrease.

Probably and hopefully.

Fundamentalism will decrease, yes.... and thoughtlessness will decrease. But do increased critical thinking skills lead to a choice against Christianity?

Not always, but often.

What percentage of scientists in the US are Christians?

About 50%, around 10% in the Academy.

Are the Christian ones dumber than the atheist ones?

Not as far as I know, but it does seem that on average, the more accomplished the scientist, the less likely they are to be Christian.

---

Equilax: Are you saying it isn't possible for a thoughtful and intelligent person to go through a process where he or she decides for him or herself that the bible is correct?

What made you think he was saying that?

[simplemoss]

Does anybody have any ideas about the future of Christianity in the US?

The last survey I saw from Pew Forum showed that all denominations were shrinking except for Pentecostal and Catholic, and young people are more likely to identify as a "none".

I have wondered if the decrease of Christianity in Europe might give clues about the future in the US. Of course the internet didn't exist when this happened in Europe.

Maybe Christians will gravitate towards neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and universities that are majority Christian? Maybe Christians will flock to churches that immerse them in activities, services, etc.?

how do you know we won't simply evolve from being sky cake craving genie worshipping fucktards. Too people who accept there is no God.


Quite possible we will explode soon enough in a an atheist Renaissance where 90%+ of Americans become atheist in less then ten years

[robvalue]

Matt Dillahunty is a prime example of what I was driveling on about. He is a hardcore sceptic, and always has been. But he was a christian for 25 years and was beginning to train to become a minister. It was at that point he decided that he needed to find the answers to the problems atheists had been presenting him with, so he could stride confidently into his new role.

Once he started looking, he discovered that he had been applying scepticism to every aspect of his life except his religion. Once he finally shone the light on it, he found it didn't hold up. Thus began his deconversion, and his eventual atheism. Now he's a presenter on the Atheist Experience. Check it out on youtube, it's incredibly entertaining and informative for theist and atheist alike.

I'm sure there are plenty more scientifically minded sceptics out there who just haven't shone that light into the sacred darkness of their religion. It may be the fear of what they will find, it may be conditioning, it may be peer pressure. It's up to them whether they continue to keep religion in a little box that is safe from reason and reality, or to apply the same methods to it that they would to anything else, and see if it stands up. If it's true, it should.

Spoiler: it doesn't.

[Mister Agenda]

Esquilax: what is reality?

Dictionaries are free these days, kid:

re·al·i·ty/rēˈalədē/
noun
1.the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2.the state or quality of having existence or substance.

The scientists have made the decision for themselves at some time that the Bible is right and is to be trusted along with science.

Some scientists have, yes. They didn't use the same process to conclude that the Bible is right as they used to conclude science is (mostly) right. They're religious scientists, not scientific religionists.

On the other hand some humanists have made the decision that there exists a natural explanation for everything.

A conclusion that could easily be disproved by demonstrating a single supernatural explanation for anything is actually the case. And most humanists are methodological naturalists, not philosophical naturalists. They haven't decided there's a natural explanation for everything, they just recognize that natural explanations are all science can deal with, sans evidence of the supernatural.

And so this view will shape the way that they look at origins science.

The ONLY proper way to look at 'origins science' is to follow the evidence. If you'd like to propose a better alternative, I'd love to hear it.

Should the scientists back up to the time before they decided to trust the Bible?

Most scientists who are religious avoid mixing their religion with their science. Most scientists who are religious are not creationists. There are more scientists in the relevant fields named Steve or Stephanie than there are scientists in the relevant fields who are creationists. Do you think being a Republican or a Democrat should make a difference when a scientist is on the job?

Can a humanist back up to the time before which he decided that there is a natural explanation for everything? Is that possible?

I'm a humanist, and I still haven't decided there is a natural explanation for everyhing. If it weren't possible, people would never change their minds.

Can anyone truly be intellectually honest?

They can certainly make an honest attempt to be intellectually honest.

What are the sources of truth by which one can determine reality?

You want to be careful here. You don't have any 'sources of truth' that we don't have.

Reason? Science? If there were something supernatural how would one know?

Supernatural claims aren't made in a vacuum. They're made about things that exist. For instance, that supernatural forces created existence. The supernatural is supposed to interact with the natural. If it does, there can be evidence. If it doesn't, the supernatural doesn't matter anyway. There are plenty of predictions about what we will find in nature that would be consistent with supernatural activity. So far we've only found in nature what's consistent with natural causes.

... Stepping away from Christianity, let's take the example of the show on TV called long island medium.

Sadly, it is true that this show exists, and on the supposed Learning Channel.

Is this all made up?

Yes.

Is it an elaborate scheme?

Yes.

Is there a natural explanation?

Cold reading and eagerness to believe.

[robvalue]

Let's play a game of spot the difference:

Sceptics minimal assumptions:

(1) What I experience is real in some sense
(2) I can learn something about reality
(3) There are very basic rules of logic which are needed for anything to make sense

Christian "sceptic" minimal assumptions:

(1) What I experience is real in some sense
(2) I can learn something about reality
(3) There are very basic rules of logic which are needed for anything to make sense
(4) God is real
(5) God did everything
(6) The bible is true
(7) The bible is the word of god
(8) God is all powerful, all knowing and all good


If you're interested in truth, drop as many assumptions as possible. Otherwise you're just using your random assumptions to prove themselves, which is not impressive.

Geez, I'm a preachy little fuck today. I better shut up now. Sorry about that.

[watchamadoodle]

If the scriptures were accurate they would be irrelevant.
The fact is that they are directly contradicted by the physical evidence all the way till circa ~450BC.
You claim to be a PHd student, that implies you can do academic research. The data is there, the evidence is damning; The jews lied through their teeth. There never was a monotheistic kingdom of Isreal or Judah, no Egyptian plagues, no flood, just a bunch of middle eastern con-artists.

That argument has been helpful to me.

I see two problems:

(1) debunking Christianity
I use the historical evidence showing that Judaism and Christianity evolved gradually to debunk the Abrahamic religions. (I'm 90% convinced on this.)

(2) debunking a deity that cares what I do or think.
I use the philosophical arguments to debunk. (I'm 60% convinced on this.)

[Jhayward]

rexbeccarox and others: I should have pointed out that the best material, I think, from RTB is in Hugh Ross' book called More Than a Theory where he outlines a testable creation model. Since it is testable, of course it isnt all right, but it is the most thoughtful origins study I have seen out there. There is a long list of claims made there. Unfortunately there is no web link, and I wouldnt expect anyone here to buy it. Plus, when you read the book and see that he trusts the bible, you may read no further, which would make it not worth the money either. In any case, if you want to see the most intelligent things that creationists who are scientists say, I think this is it. It is far cry from what you see from certain young earth creationists...much more intellectually honest, in my opinion... with some humility, too.

[Minimalist]

Because even atheist can not argue that level of State educated evil.

No shit, Drips. But comparing any sort of State function to Hitler is something beneath even the most feverish paranoid fanatics. It's even beneath you, so don't bother trying to make that false equivalence.

But not drippy who is a True Shithead.

I bet he marches around his house to that music.