Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could do some honest research, and then you will find Conservapedia does not synthesize research data, it misrepresents it.
That big hint you ignored, the universe is older than 6000 years old.
You make these assertions all the time based on genetic fallacy grounds instead of addressing the actual content at issue. That is a lazy way to do research. Even the most irresponsible sources can be right and the most responsible sources can be wrong about a particular assertion which is something you do not seem to comprehend.
You make these assertions all the time based on genetic fallacy grounds instead of addressing the actual content at issue. That is a lazy way to do research. Even the most irresponsible sources can be right and the most responsible sources can be wrong about a particular assertion which is something you do not seem to comprehend.
At least he can research what he is talking about. Some people make claims about things for which there is no knowledge base.
At least he can research what he is talking about. Some people make claims about things for which there is no knowledge base.
The other problem is that the OP is taking these assertions, which may apply to statements made by certain specific prominent atheist academians and applying it to the hopes, dreams, and viewpoints of all atheists everywhere.
I don’t care if other people believe in God. I operate under no delusions that if the whole world became atheist overnight, all conflicts everywhere would vanish. I think that religion can provide a lot of positive things for a lot of people and these people, in turn, can do positive things for their greater communities and the whole world.
What I take issue with is religious extremism of any kind as well as assertions that religion is either necessary or sufficient for people to do good and have a properly aligned moral compass. I take issue with people claiming that I am incomplete or inferior because I don’t believe in God when I don’t think my non-belief in God makes me more complete than or superior to anyone. I also take issue with people proclaiming that the tragedies in my own life have some greater purpose or are part of God’s plan, although I’m less concerned with this because their tone-deafness and stupidity, however annoying, did not actually cause these bad things to happen, and were they more enlightened thinkers, it wouldn’t undo these bad things which have happened.
You make these assertions all the time based on genetic fallacy grounds instead of addressing the actual content at issue.
Your ad hominem has NOTHING to do with the post you quoted. There is NO assertion, and there is NO genetic fallacy. Conservapedia is well known top be a dishonest and unreliable source, regardless of the sources it uses and abuses.
You need to deal with that, and the user who keeps ignoring that instead of attacking me for telling the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is a lazy way to do research. Even the most irresponsible sources can be right and the most responsible sources can be wrong about a particular assertion which is something you do not seem to comprehend.
What part of I am not talking about the sources, but Conservapedia is well known for misrepresenting it's sources do you not understand?
If non PhDs can understand that, why do you have a problem?
Or the knowledge base is beyond their current knowledge and capabilities, phet.
Maybe, just maybe, you are correct, and Conservapedia (along with icr.org and AiG) have suddenly started telling the truth. But then why does the OP not use the sources themselves?
I don't see religion or lack of religion doing away with war. War is more about resources.
I agree. Anti-religionists and secularists however have and do argue that
1) religion causes divisions, conflicts, terrorism, wars, and it has always been thus.
2) With secularism, westernization, capitalism and greater prosperity and education, the influence of religion will diminish or even cease altogether.
3) Since, the argument goes, religion causes all these conflicts, when religion is eradicated we we will live in peace as there will no longer be wars, terrorism, conflicts.
That is not what has not happened.
1)With westernization, capitalism, and secularism there is increased prosperity and education. However religion has also surged in developing countries, as well as in the US.
2) There is now resistance to total capitalism, modernization/westernization, and secularization. With with more education and awareness, and globalization of labor and markets, many are reclaiming their culture and holding religion closer.
Cases in point:
Recently Christian Evangelists have demanded that US should be recognized as a Christian nation.
Religious extremism and militancy has increased in developing nations while more temples and mosques are being built.
The divisions between religions, Jews and Muslims, Hindus and Christians, Buddhists and others are widening and getting more violent.
Wars have not ceased.
Demand and supply of nuclear weapons are higher than ever.
ABSTRACT
In recent years and decades, a widespread assumption that the world is experiencing a global rise of religion has persisted. Yet, the hypothesis of a "global resurgence of religion" has not been tested by means of empirical evidence. This study uses statistical time series and cross- country data to test the hypothesis of “a global religious resurgence," and to assess its scope.
To address this question, the study examines global trends in religious adherence, and measures change of religious behavior and values over time in a multitude of countries spanning across six continents. The study identifies seven criteria by which the degree of religiosity among a certain population can be measured, using time-series and cross-country data. The study also examines other global religious trends, including a comparative overview over the relationship between religion and state in most countries, scanning variables such as the performance of religious parties in elections; preferential treatment of religions; countries with an official state religion; references to religion in constitutions; and countries under Sharia law.
The study concludes that there is ample evidence that the argument of a “global resurgence of religion” can largely be sustained, with the notable exception to this trend being the post- industrial countries—where the trend towards secularization itself, however, is far from consitent
I agree. Anti-religionists and secularists however have and do argue that
1) religion causes divisions, conflicts, terrorism, wars, and it has always been thus.
2) With secularism, westernization, capitalism and greater prosperity and education, the influence of religion will diminish or even cease altogether.
3) Since, the argument goes, religion causes all these conflicts, when religion is eradicated we we will live in peace as there will no longer be wars, terrorism, conflicts.
That is not what has not happened.
1)With westernization, capitalism, and secularism there is increased prosperity and education. However religion has also surged in developing countries, as well as in the US.
2) There is now resistance to total capitalism, modernization/westernization, and secularization. With with more education and awareness, and globalization of labor and markets, many are reclaiming their culture and holding religion closer.
Cases in point:
Recently Christian Evangelists have demanded that US should be recognized as a Christian nation. Religious extremism and militancy has increased in developing nations while more temples and mosques are being built.
The divisions between religions, Jews and Muslims, Hindus and Christians, Buddhists and others are widening and getting more violent.
Wars have not ceased.
Demand and supply of nuclear weapons are higher than ever.
1. But we don't claim that religion causes ALL divisions, conflicts, terrorism, wars, BUT YES, it has always been thus.
2. I haven't seen almost anyone here say that the "influence of religion will...cease altogether.
3. No, we didn't say that "religion causes all these conflicts". That's an untruth, to put it politely.
4. You think the bolded supports your cheerleading view of religion, rah, rah, rah?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Global Resurgence of Religion
