What is needed to combat the overwhelming level of belief in God?

[Excited Penguin]

It's a rhetorical question, ofc. You wouldn't agree with me about that, naturally.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that naturalism has been embraced by many because of either 1) the misunderstanding that it can account for everything we see or 2) if not now, it will.

As it relates to enlightening the masses, what happens if we do not figure out the origin of life and irreducible complexity? Isn't it logical that, with the overwhelming propensity for people to believe in a god, that naturalism will lose appeal when promised answers are not forthcoming? With 50% or so of scientist believing in god or higher power now, wouldn't that number just increase as time passes--further supporting a trend away from naturalism?

I embrace it because it works.  If we never find the origins of life we never find them (there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, you should respect yourself and your own posts enough not to shittify them).  Those believing scientists of yours -also- embrace naturalism, in case you were unaware...it's a necessary position, if you don't hold it you can't do science. This, to me, -is- the best case scenario. Even the religious now defer to science and naturalism rather than magic. God is no longer a sky wizard, and it;s important for the religious to be able to feel that science somehow validates their faith. That's a sea change for your religion, change for the better, imo. Sure, there are those cases where two disparate things (science/religion) mix and produce idiocy...such as in yourself with your id nonsense, but by and large I don't see that as a permanent situation. ID couldn't even get the support required for permanence in the place of it's birth..that's society saying "no, fuck you, go away". The people who -do- believe in it don't believe strongly enough to compel them to action, and those few that are compelled have been shown to be completely ineffective at every level. Here you are, running your mouth on an internet message board rather than doing the science to establish your own theory. This is the periapsis of commitment to ID, this is all there is.

Christianity is steadily becoming a religion of scientism here in the US.......lol. You're evidence of that yourself as an IDer...what are you...going to do..about that?

[Catholic_Lady]

What is needed to "combat" the overwhelming belief in God?

Kill all believers! Duh.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nah.

I prefer eating babies. Be them theists or atheists.

[Whateverist]

I think that naturalism has been embraced by many because of either 1) the misunderstanding that it can account for everything we see or 2) if not now, it will.

Your misunderstanding lies in your expectation that people are entitled to a theory which explains everything. So if science can't provide it, may as well hang on to the myths and legends that already do?

As it relates to enlightening the masses, what happens if we do not figure out the origin of life and irreducible complexity? Isn't it logical that, with the overwhelming propensity for people to believe in a god, that naturalism will lose appeal when promised answers are not forthcoming?

I doubt if there are many who disbelieve in God but only provided science comes through soon with the answer to every angst filled existential question. Again, your expectation that it should is infantile and irrelevant.

With 50% or so of scientist believing in god or higher power now, wouldn't that number just increase as time passes--further supporting a trend away from naturalism?

Even without checking your sources I know bullshit when I smell it. Are you a knowing liar or a dupe?

[Whateverist]

What is needed to "combat" the overwhelming belief in God?

Kill all believers! Duh.

Is that what you will do once you've taken over?  IS IT?!?!

[Mudhammam]

Does anyone else find it slightly encouraging that there is a "HUGE upswing" in the study of apologetics, "almost every church" having a class devoted to making their silly beliefs appear less silly to themselves and others? For many atheists, apologetics was the first door upon leaving religion because it forces you to confront rational arguments. I can only imagine the numbers who will continue to leave the church as a result of efforts to conceal the absurd with superfluous reason and evidence. Further, what would you think if other ideas were getting the same kind of attention as the "defense of faith" is apparently receiving in religious communities? Might you perhaps wonder why there is all of this emphasis on its defense, as it implies some uncomfortable questions about its inherent credibility (i.e. the reason and evidence that is readily available must be pretty fucking shitty to require such extraneous efforts)? Of course, the OP is right that religion is surging, but I think he also inadvertantly concedes us a silver lining: that religion as an intellectually respectable exercise is in its death throes.

[Longhorn]

Nah.

I prefer eating babies. Be them theists or atheists.

All babies are atheists. Does this mean we really are what we eat after all? .-.

[downbeatplumb]

I think that naturalism has been embraced by many because of either 1) the misunderstanding that it can account for everything we see or 2) if not now, it will.

As it relates to enlightening the masses, what happens if we do not figure out the origin of life and irreducible complexity? Isn't it logical that, with the overwhelming propensity for people to believe in a god, that naturalism will lose appeal when promised answers are not forthcoming? With 50% or so of scientist believing in god or higher power now, wouldn't that number just increase as time passes--further supporting a trend away from naturalism?

Even if you find an organism that requires every bit working in an irreducibly complex way it would not mean that evolution would be wrong. Bits can be reused repurposed and discarded. Evolution is a wonder. For your delectation how we hear with ancient fish jaw bones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJc008GY8vI

[athrock]

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?

In the past, Atheists were content to live and let live, and they did not go out of their way to evangelize folks to their way of thinking.

This all changed after September 11, and was spearheaded by the "four horsemen" - Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Add in the popularity of books by people like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, and you have the makings of a groundswell.

I can only comment on what I've observed in the US, but my take is that the churches in America were unprepared for this sudden assault on the nation's core religious values. But that is changing rapidly, and the interest you're seeing in apologetics does not bode well for the skeptics. 

They landed a few good sucker punches, but the result may only be that a sleeping giant has been awakened. It will be interesting to see how the skeptics react as more and more believers begin to shift resources from a focus on generalized "evangelism" to the more specific arguments of atheism more directly.