What about the religious organizations?

[geni]

I'm going to let you look up the details for yourself since you're clearly too lazy to bother even attempting to back up your wildly inaccurate 60:40 statement.

New zealand census supports my position

http://www.stats.govt.nz/people/arts/religion.htm

Where in your article are the figures?

Refer the above. The aberration is USA.

Nyet. Rather a lot of south america has free and fair elections today.

That is PIT-BULL, a very aggressive type of dog.

And still very stupid.

Yes, I'm very, very stupid and christians outnumber non-christians.

I didn't claim that since Islam and hinduism have a large number of followers.

This is impossible to quantify. You present some actual evidence yourself and then I'll worry about backing this up.

You made the claim you back it up.

And the lack of priests and pastors?

Economic factors again.

 

[Floyd]

Kitakaze - I have read your constructive criticism of my article but I think you are wrong on all counts. However, please feel free to cite any evidence you have for your arguments.

The Atheist - Good on ya mate...

 

[The Atheist]

Well, you've certainly proved one thing, your research skills aren't up to scratch!

New zealand census supports my position

http://www.stats.govt.nz/people/arts/religion.htm

Where in your article are the figures?

Interesting you should quote the 2000 census. First off, it's now historical data only since the 2005 provisional figures have already been released. The current rate of christian support in NZ is so close to 50:50 as to be negligible. The other thing you'll find - assuming you can catch up with the 2006 figures - is exactly how many participants christianity has lost in the preceeding 5 years, while the population grew significantly, especially with migration from staunch christian strongholds such as RSA and Philippines.

Nyet. Rather a lot of south america has free and fair elections today.

Depends on how you view free and fair elections, I guess, but I grant you that a couple may be worthy of inclusion in USA's group. No point getting started on the "who's having free and fair elections?" track.

You made the claim you back it up.

Ok, I'll go get signed affidavits from each person........ grow up, laddie! You can believe me or not, I actually don't care.[/QUOTE]
If you don't think that christianity has suffered an enormous decline, and continues to suffer an enormous decline throughout the stable democracies of the world, then you should be an attraction at Disneyland.

 

[The Atheist]

I believe my first post covered his point nicely. Religion DOES offer something - but its not something people couldn't get elsewhere without having to endure the fairy tales and tithes.

Correct. The trouble is that, along with the fairy tales comes the misogyny, the bigotry and the hypocrisy.

Part of it is the basic concept of why people behave in the way they do. I believe that people are inherently quite ambivalent creatures and most wiould continue to act the way they do now.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, since you seem to want to carry this on, I'm game.

Not quite sure what your problem is other than you disagree with what I do. Good for you, lots of people do, but few of them bother to degenerate into this type of puerile banter. Face it, you're out of your league - just give up now. Look at the start of your post: you say it's a difference of opinion but immediately launch into another hissy fit. Am I touching a nerve somewhere? If so, my non-apology will be expected, no doubt.

I'd call it a difference of opinions but if you wanna call it a little hissy fit it's fine by me, drama queen. But as long as you're having fun butting heads, knock yourself out. I got a head like Ed Munster...

That does surprise me.

and I can dance and carry a tune, too.No, sweety. My comprehension skills are just fine, thanks.

I beg to differ and will point out a couple on the way through.

However, in using Dr. Adequate as a counterpoint to yourself and saying that 'WE are fighting them on all fronts' you do denote a shared sense of purpose in a purposeful display of connection.

This is the first comprehension problem. I mentioned DA and myself as being on the same side in the same way that USA and USSR were on the same side during WWII - there was no love lost between the two and they went about things in very different ways. You are mistaking comparison with association.

As for the other, I'll let geni speak for him/herself but I will say reducing your argument to getting anal about spelling fits the drama queen profile rather wellYou may want to add a 'to someone like me' to the end of that but regardless, I don't remember availing myself to such and important competition, love.

You see anal, I see banal.

I do remember having many exchanges of ideas and debates (sometimes heated) with religious people that ultimately proved beneficial for both sides but then again I didn't start out the conversation by calling them a simp. So tell me, was Martin Luther King, Jr. a simp. Or how 'bout Malcolm X? He seems more you're style. Uh, let's see. Mother Theresa, Stephen Hawking, J.R.R. Tolkien, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela. Are/were they simps?

Mother Theresa, I have well and truly covered elsewhere, and I think the official phrase is, "manslaughterous hag" after I dropped the murder charges. Not sure what a "simp" is though, probably some expression which is a bit trendy in high schools at the moment, but I must confess to having never heard it before. If you'd care to elaborate, I'll gladly let you know whether any of them were "simps".

Thank you, Ms. Ross. Yes, I may be young but I still know ignorance and arrogance when I see it.

Well, I'm definitely arrogant and freely admit to it, so I guess you see the ignorance when you look in shop windows.

I have spoken with Jehovah's Witnesses, successfully. However, my goal wasn't to get them to renounce their faith but to stop coming to my house and realize that not everybody is awake and feeling philosophical at 6:00 in the morning. They came once more another day at 12:00pm and we all laughed and I said 'nice try' and they never came again.

There you go, you see, your goals are a little different to mine. You seek to sleep in for a few hours, I aim for the total eradication of religion; small steps.

Love thy enemy. Universal Law. I know, it's tough.Oh, sugar. Who's comprehension skill are getting shaky now?

This really is where your biggest comprehension trouble comes in. As long as you don't try and tell me that "love thy enemy" comes from your "wisdom" gained from christianity, I may accept you learnt something.

I am just snipping a little quote from your reply to ginarley:

<kitkaze>Quote: "What makes me sick are the ones who exploit that weakness to gain support."

I don't believe that was aimed at me, but I will note that I don't seek people like that to attack. I only ever respond to personal problems with compassion, regardless of religion. My full-frontal attack method is aimed at hard-line christians - I can stake my history on thatv fact. Just thought you should know that, I might be a pit-bull, but I'm not a mongrel. I will pick on a pastor, a leader or a televangelist, but not their families.

 

[blutoski]

However, there are relatively few psychics and supporters of paranormal activity. Less than two percent of the population. Rather insignificant, it would seem.

What does Montessori, Phonics, and post-modernism have to do with anything meta-physical or paranormal? Montessori was just some teaching method that went out of style and is unheard of now. Phonics is just a way to teach kids to spell in English - maybe pointless, but not paranormal. And post-modernism?

Montessori is based on educational principles that have been disproven. Yet, the schools persist because people believe. Phonics is a strategy of the Church of Scientology to introduce their educational philosophy into the public mainstream. Like parents with kids in cults who call up the International Cult Awareness Network, people are unaware that they're dealing with Scientology.

Basically, post-modermish is being skeptical of the then-modern industrial society.

Postmodernism has a bad reputation among skeptics because there are postmodernist extremists who make insipid claims that the public accepts as academically profound. eg: physics is just a dialogue among physicists instead of a study of something that really exists.

I am questing why there is so much attention towards small and mostly insignificant things like psychics and other paranormal activity. Those are hardly changing the face of society at all, and will most likely be oppressed and reduced to just about nothing by the fundamentalist religious groups anyways.

I understand, but I reject your assumption that there is disproportionate attention. While it's true that professional psychics are rare on the TV scene, they're abundant in lay groups, and ordinary people who do not sell their talents nevertheless believe they have them. Recent surveys show that approximately 70% of respondants believe they sometimes have esp experiences.

I have also posted above to explain that there are many legitemate reasons that skeptics focus their interest elsewhere. One is that they disagree with the veiw that religion is a bigger problem than their pet subject.

 

[snooziums]

Montessori is based on educational principles that have been disproven. Yet, the schools persist because people believe.

A few schools, yes. But a very few. And almost nothing when compared to all of the religious schools. I live in a city with over 100,000, and while there are about 20 religious schools, there are no Montessori schools (yes, I did look).

Phonics is a strategy of the Church of Scientology to introduce their educational philosophy into the public mainstream.

The Church of Scientology is a religion, and not "new age" (unless one wanted to argue that it was not a religion, but even they state that they are).

Like parents with kids in cults who call up the International Cult Awareness Network, people are unaware that they're dealing with Scientology.

This is sad to see, however the largest "cult watch" group in the United States is run my the conservative Baptist Church.

Postmodernism has a bad reputation among skeptics because there are postmodernist extremists who make insipid claims that the public accepts as academically profound...

Possibly true. However, extremists if any kind can fall into the trap of making radical statements. Yes, even extreme skeptics can fall into this trap.

While it's true that professional psychics are rare on the TV scene, they're abundant in lay groups...

To a point. Where I live (a city with 100,000 people), there are only three psychics, yet over 50 churches.

Recent surveys show that approximately 70% of respondants believe they sometimes have esp experiences.

Hmm.... that seems odd, since very few that I know claim to have had esp experiences (yes, I did ask a few that I know).

And yet... 97 percent of the population believes that humans have a soul.

One is that they disagree with the veiw that religion is a bigger problem than their pet subject.

How many psychics influence government actions? Last I check, none. How many religious fanatics influence government actions: quite a few. How many psychics condemn people to hell? How many wars were started over "new age" ideas?

I have yet to see how psychics and "new age" beliefs will lead to the destruction of the world. Yet, religious leaders and their followers are everyday working to cause as much damage as they can, and given the chance, many of them would gladly "press the button" and end all life on this planet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, there's a few things here in this thread that I think should be addressed but I don't mean to offend if I seem the Devil's Advocate.I'm sorry snooziums but I'll be dead straight with you- I'm calling BS. I find your claim of multiple death threats from the newly opened mega-church highly dubious to say the least.....

Not that I have an opinion one way or the other on snooziums anecdotes, but there have been many Bible thumpers out threatening death and carrying it out against gays and abortion clinic workers so the idea some would threaten death to someone fighting the building of their new church is at least plausible.

I agree with the concept of the thread. I don't think there's a need to 'fight' for people to give up religion, it wouldn't work anyway. But I do think a lot of science oriented folks ignore the religious elephant in the room.

I think realistically, maybe a 100 year plan is a reasonable goal for someone thinking of changing the situation actively rather than waiting for it to pass naturally. You have to chip away.

I and a few others here like Piggy for one, have dropped the claim science cannot test for gods and instead while acknowledging one can't prove invisible flying spaghetti gods don't exist, that isn't what gods are. Gods are things with characteristics which if they did exist, should be detectable. And of course they aren't.

In my case, I prefer to look for the most reasonable explanation explaining belief in gods and religion. The evidence points to a purely human construct and there is no evidence of real gods. There is nothing suggesting the need to explain theoretical undetectable gods.

I would like to see more science types drop the god and science dichotomy which they use, in my opinion, to avoid having to confront the issue of the believer's resistance to letting go of the myths. Of course science types will claim it's a science rule you can't test the untestable. True but that is a false argument because gods are supposed to have qualities such as answering prayers which are testable. And the conversation goes round and round.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those of you who don't think Snooziums has a point, I direct your attention to to these sites I stumbled on a couple months ago. I was curious when I saw a reference to "The Global Mission."

The State of World Evangelization - How Are We Doing? Are We Making Progress?

Status of Global Mission, 2006, in the Context of 20th and 21st Centuries

The second link has numbers of believers of each major religion and atheists if the count is reliable.

 

[blutoski]

I have yet to see how psychics and "new age" beliefs will lead to the destruction of the world. Yet, religious leaders and their followers are everyday working to cause as much damage as they can, and given the chance, many of them would gladly "press the button" and end all life on this planet.

The perception among skeptics is that it's a general problem. Psychics as individuals may not 'lead to the destruction of the world,' but if you're being hounded by psychics when your child has gone missing, but finding solace in religion, I can understand that such a person would sort the threats into diffrent priorities, and I would consider this person reasonable.

re: influence in politics. Yes. However, it's unclear that the net influence is negative. The congregation my wife attends is particularly busy lobbying the city for more social housing. Does eliminating this influence make the world a better place?

 

[blutoski]

To a point. Where I live (a city with 100,000 people), there are only three psychics, yet over 50 churches.

Hard to tell without actually going door-to-door. Most psychics do not advertise, but operate as word-of-mouth as a cottage industry. My ghost investigation team alone has eleven psychics ("operating intuitives") on call, and they're just the ones within the founding social group. None of them advertise: they don't have to: their clientiele is sufficient as it is.

Also: it's hard to compare, because there's an overlap of belief systems. Psychics often act as mediums, which in principle contradicts the typical beliefs of Christian churchgoers (I believe mediupship and spirituality are a type of religion, specifically pagan ancestor worship).

 

[blutoski]

The Church of Scientology is a religion, and not "new age" (unless one wanted to argue that it was not a religion, but even they state that they are).

There is no contradiction. New Age is a type of religion.

In the case of Scientology, they qualify as New Age, since they are based on modern scientific claims, and have no deist claims. ie: they claim they are scientifically verified, which is a hallmark of New Age religions.

also: they are only a 'religion' in some countries. Only the countries where this gives them tax breaks. In other countries, they claim they are a philosophy.

 

[blutoski]

Possibly true. However, extremists if any kind can fall into the trap of making radical statements. Yes, even extreme skeptics can fall into this trap.

Right, but it's pretty much a skeptical standard that most of postmodernism is crap and a threat to critical thinking. The postmodernist metaphysic has left us with a public that have no faith in science, no faith in history as a body of knowledge, and so on.

Politics and religion have benefitted greatly from this: "History is written by the winners." (historical revisionism, such as antisemitism, or afrocentrism) "Sure, that's what the liberal media would lead you to believe." (pretty much all of modern politics and religious debate) "Sure that's what scientists say, but they're unable to think outside their paradigm." (a central religious argument in support of creation science or ID) &c.


Postmodernism is at the root of much erosion of skeptical thinking in the West.

 

[blutoski]

This is sad to see, however the largest "cult watch" group in the United States is run my the conservative Baptist Church.

I doubt this hotline is part of an international project to solicit recruits. I would bet it's a sincere cult watch. Does it disguise itself as unassociated with Baptists?

Please identify this cult watch for us: website? Telephone number?


For my part, here's the iCAN: (a Scientiology operation)

http://www.cultawarenessnetwork.org

 

[Ginarley]

BTW, it got lost in the banter a bit but your first post was excellent. The very base element of risk assessment and comfort are highly influetial factors when one is considering faith. The sad type that I see all too often and the ones I try the hardest to reach out to the most are the neglected, depressive types who fervently cling to their faith in lieu of a lack of friends, family, self-confidence, or self-worth. What makes me sick are the ones who exploit that weakness to gain support.

Thaks Kitikaze - you also hint at what I see as the single biggest problem with the stereotypical atheist/skeptic. We spend all out time bringing things down but we DON"T OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE. It is a bit like the oil crisis - you will never get any traction saying "don't drive" but if you say "drive a hybrid and we'll make it cost the same" then people will react.

One of the biggest challenges for atheists is to offer a genuine alternative to the organisational comfort that religion offers - and I don't think we have that answer yet. In many ways things like the New Age religions or groups like the Landmark forum have stepped in to offer to fill that gap - unfortunately they are no better than religion and in many ways worse since they are much more aggressive at manipulating their victims. Unfortunately all we atheists really have to offer is "nothing" - all we say is "stop praying".

WE know that it's perfectly possible to live contently and happily with no organisational comfort in your life, but a habit formed is a hard habit to break. I have a couple of friends who say they are christians but they mostly say that because they like the people they hang with and enjoy going to church - when I talked to them in detail they felt that they didn't really believe in god - they just liked the church because it had good people in it, and so long as they were there they would consider themselves christians.

As for the war thing - we have to learn from the Iraq experience. If you are going to destroy the government in an area, you HAVE to have an alternative plan for governance otherwise the net result on the people who matter (ie the citizens) will suffer more than anyone else. If we invade christianity we MUST offer an alternative in order that the good people (most of them) involved aren't too badly hurt in the process.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, since you seem to want to carry this on, I'm game.

Not quite sure what your problem is other than you disagree with what I do.

Jehovah's Witness or otherwise, I don't mind engaging zealous fools at all. It's OK to disagree but as for what you do other than consider yourself in a war against the religious of the world and feel compelled to spew about it here, I couldn't give a rats ass.

If the word 'simp' is confounding to you let me help you out by letting you know it's short for simpleton. A very apt descriptor for yourself and your hand-to-the-hilt horse$#!%.

I will try to answer any specific points you raise but your comprehensively challenged choices in quoting leaves little room for meaningful dialogue. Passion blinds, The Atheist. Put your coke bottles back on. After you do that make sure you use them to look hard at some factually accurate history texts to ensure you don't repeat fool-ass comments on the subject.

Confused why I'm repelled by your stench? Fanatical zealism reeks would be the cause.

Not a fan of Mother Theresa, eh? Any comments on the other names I listed or was that inconvenient for your faithful are idiots argument?

So you seek the eradication of all religion. In your 'Big Daddy fearing simps plague our existence' complex has any feasible solution occurred to you as to how to unite humanity? I doubt it as complexes thrive on the illogical anyway. When your desired war is over what do you do then toughcat? Go back to a less time consuming @$$holeness? What shall we do with the suddenly faithful in your secular utopia? I will say for the record that anyone who expects all of humanity to accept the concept of 'you're born, live, die, and that's it' anytime ever doesn't understand humans very well. And that has jack$#!% to do with what you and I think to the contrary.

 

[Rodney]

How come there is not thousands of voices against the current injustices that are caused by religious leaders that are running this country, and the world?

So what we need are more atheist leaders like Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Kim Jong Il?

 

[kitakaze]

So what we need are more atheist leaders like Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Kim Jong Il?

Hoo-frickin'-ra! Oh wait! Shut up! Don't confuse the first-world, western, my world view must certainly apply beyond what I know, peeved by christianity, brats with any 'not only religious zealots are looney' details. It makes them dizzy.

 

[blutoski]

As for the war thing - we have to learn from the Iraq experience. If you are going to destroy the government in an area, you HAVE to have an alternative plan for governance otherwise the net result on the people who matter (ie the citizens) will suffer more than anyone else. If we invade christianity we MUST offer an alternative in order that the good people (most of them) involved aren't too badly hurt in the process.

To some extent we're seeing a living experiment in this with the ex-Soviet republics. When I was in Lithuania, what was noticeable was that Atheism did function as a religion there. Attitudes like The Atheist's were common. Why were they atheists? Because that's what the government said, and the government was all-wise. Oh, also: all the problems of the world can be solved by science and economics.

There were dissenters, though. They felt that all the problems of the world can be solved by science and capitalism.

These people would believe anything they read on an advertisement or on TV. It was troubling.

The problem is that their structure imploded and the vacuum was filled with a zillion competitors. Ponzi schemes in Romania. People with x-ray vision. Mediums scientifically proven. It's still going on today.

Although: Russia is clamping down on imported religions, because they're so successful, and compete with the Russian orthodox monopoly.

Anyway: my point is that an athestic society is not usually compatible with skepticism anyway, if the atheists are all spending cash on improving vibrational energy to cure their cancer. Russia's atheist, and it's a skeptical disaster area. I'd put China in the same boat.

 

[blutoski]

So what we need are more atheist leaders like Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Kim Jong Il?

As it happens, many cult specialists place socioeconomic organized movements into their purview. They include NAZIsm, Stalinism, Maoism, and early Objecivism.