Zone1 Belief in God drops to 81 percent

[Seymour Flops]

How much do you want to bet most of that 81% aren't involved actively with any religion?

You may well be right. People pursue their religions in varying degrees, from several times per week at church or working for the church to haven't been since Easter when I was thirteen.

Point is that after a hundred years of anti-religious propaganda, including the Soviet Union insisting that atheism is the path to mankind's future, with nearly all of Western Europe embracing anti-religion along with other parts of Soviet Doctrine, and with our own intellectuals and media, insisting that the Soviet model of religion is the best, and in spite of nearly every court ruling in which atheism and religion conflict being handed to the atheist side, 81% of the United States is still in the category that the 19% insists are brainwashed and superstitious.

Time to give up the effort, guys. Or at least pause it while you ask yourselves why - after you have so clearly explained to people that they are pathetic morons for believing - they continue to trust the "ghost daddy in the sky," instead of you.

 

[Feeding Crows]

The world is turning better, slowly but surely.

 

[Donald H]

Christians are taking part in this discussion because they subconsciously want answers that their religion can't answer and their faith isn't 'good enough' any longer.

At least the 'literal' belief in their bible is evaporating away and they're turning to trying to find other meaning in their religious beliefs. Some are even feeling betrayed by their churches turning to accept evolution! How can they possibly reconcile both creation and evolution together?

Many aren't satisfied with no answers to their questions and so they believe they could find answers in this kind of discussion. But alas, this discussion even in zone 1 has gone south.

Religious belief must be established in a child's formative years when he/she is still not capable of questioning. That requires the children having parents that are thoroughly indoctrinated themselves, but that's not happening nearly as much now.

 

[Leo123]

The same is true of Trump’s supporters - nothing but contempt for values that created this great country.

Obama is a racist.

 

[Leo123]

You can’t be serious.

Trump has nothing but contempt for values that created this great country – he proved that on 1/6.

Did Miss Piggy tell you that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Homosexuality has always been diagnosed as a MENTAL CONDITION.......until just recently in history.

And then we grew up. Not you.

 

[Clyde 154]

Christians are taking part in this discussion because they subconsciously want answers that their religion can't answer and their faith isn't 'good enough' any longer.

At least the 'literal' belief in their bible is evaporating away and they're turning to trying to find other meaning in their religious beliefs. Some are even feeling betrayed by their churches turning to accept evolution! How can they possibly reconcile both creation and evolution together?

Many aren't satisfied with no answers to their questions and so they believe they could find answers in this kind of discussion. But alas, this discussion even in zone 1 has gone south.

Religious belief must be established in a child's formative years when he/she is still not capable of questioning. That requires the children having parents that are thoroughly indoctrinated themselves, but that's not happening nearly as much now.

What? Another individual with the gift of "Clairvoyance".........the ability to read the subconscious minds of others? Just how do you know what another person "......subconsciously wants"?

Evolution? How can one reject evolution? Its simple: Applied Science........every attempt made to reproduce life as defined by the supposed theory of evolution has been falsified by the Scientific Method of Experimentation that consists of Observation, Reproduction with consistency every time the experiment is applied. There has not been "one" successful attempt to reproduce life from non living matter as stated as the basic tenet of Evolution. On the flip side.........science agrees with the definition of life provided in the Holy Scriptures..........life can only be reproduced via preexisting life within the same species as defined by Louis Pasteur when he debunked abiogenesis in the 19th century. Truth does not evolve.

The Holy Scriptures and the CREATION model have never been subject to falsification by the Scientific Method..........NEVER!

What's more logical to accept as truth..... A model that has never been falsified or a theory that has been falsified with every attempt to reproduce that theory into reality in the lab?

The scriptures agree with the experimentation of Pasteur......100%. "And then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind; cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind": and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." -- Genesis 1:24-25

Some attempt to define Change within species as EVOLUTION........when in reality all species were created with the DNA required to adapt to its surroundings........there are no examples of life having ever evolved outside the species from which it originated. All life on earth share their DNA signatures to a point......why? Believe all life forms on earth are CARBON based. If mankind was not created with the ability to change to his surroundings he would have became extinct the first time he came into contact with the common cold virus.

Mutation? Mutation corrupts a perfectly healthy DNA signature, it does not add information, it takes away from the perfect. Every time the pseudo scientist digs up a mutated (imperfect) fossil from the past they declare it as a NEW SPECIES never seen before. Example: Finding examples of early man in a cave in Europe.......and declaring they are a subspecies of modern man because of the deformed heads and bones..........when they never consider the reality of what they might have found, an example of isolated family members that inbreed to the point of deformity. Why is this hypothesis neve considered? Its misses their target of speculation, assumption and conjectures.

There has never been an example of one life form evolving into another. Some attempt the con game of suggesting that Birds have evolved from Dinosaurs...........when in reality, they can't even agree upon the hypothesis that defines the dinosaur as being warm blooded or cold blooded.


Ask your own "nanny state" government if Dinosaurs were warm blooded or cold blooded. They can't agree........so they made up a new status.......dinosaurs were BOTH warm and cold blooded at the same instant. They can't prove either........so the knock an arrow from their quiver..........point it at the side of a big barn...........and release the arrow, then they rush up to the barn, draw a bullseye target around the arrow and say, "See.........we never miss our target." Its called Circular Logic. You begin with a predetermined ANSWER and then seek the question to agree with the opinionated answer.

www.usgs.gov/faqs/were-dinosaurs-warm-blooded-or-cold-blooded

 

[Blues Man]

You may well be right. People pursue their religions in varying degrees, from several times per week at church or working for the church to haven't been since Easter when I was thirteen.

Point is that after a hundred years of anti-religious propaganda, including the Soviet Union insisting that atheism is the path to mankind's future, with nearly all of Western Europe embracing anti-religion along with other parts of Soviet Doctrine, and with our own intellectuals and media, insisting that the Soviet model of religion is the best, and in spite of nearly every court ruling in which atheism and religion conflict being handed to the atheist side, 81% of the United States is still in the category that the 19% insists are brainwashed and superstitious.

Time to give up the effort, guys. Or at least pause it while you ask yourselves why - after you have so clearly explained to people that they are pathetic morons for believing - they continue to trust the "ghost daddy in the sky," instead of you.

I don;t know where you're watching the news but I have never heard anyone touting the USSR party line on religion

The problems the religion is having retaining or recruiting followers is largely the fault of the institutions of religion themselves.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I don;t know where you're watching the news but I have never heard anyone touting the USSR party line on religion

You've never heard the religion of atheism being pushed as the correct intellectual choice?

The problems the religion is having retaining or recruiting followers is largely the fault of the institutions of religion themselves.

No doubt. The OP's post seems to show that the problem is not as big as the proselytizers of atheism would like it to be.

 

[Blues Man]

You've never heard the religion of atheism being pushed as the correct intellectual choice?

No doubt. The OP's post seems to show that the problem is not as big as the proselytizers of atheism would like it to be.

Atheists are no threat to religion.

There have always been atheists there always will be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You've never heard the religion of atheism being pushed as the correct intellectual choice?

In the sense of not being certain a God exists, of course that is the correct intellectual choice.

That's why it is called faith. Belief without evidence. Faith is anti intellectual from the start.

 

[Blues Man]

In the sense of not being certain a God exists, of course that is the correct intellectual choice.

That's why it is called faith. Belief without evidence. Faith is anti intellectual from the start.

Technically agnosticism is the most reasonable choice as there is no proof that gods do or do not exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Technically agnosticism is the most reasonable choice as there is no proof that gods do or do not exist.

What I described is agnosticism. It is also strictly atheism. Not adopting a belief in a personal God.

All agnostics are strictly atheists.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Here is an article on the rather more dramatic recent declines in actual Church attendance, as well as in identifying with any of the major religions in the U.S.A.

Though all religions are effected (even the Unitarians!), Catholics seem the most effected by these declines in recent years. For those who can’t help seeing everything in political terms, here is a tiny bone to naw on: not Democrats but “Independents” still have the highest rate of non-affiliation and the lowest rate of regular Church attendance.

U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time

For the first time in Gallup's polling history, less than half of U.S. adults report belonging to a church, synagogue or mosque.

news.gallup.com

P.S.:
African-Americans remain among the most actively religious in the country.

 

[Blues Man]

What I described is agnosticism. It is also strictly atheism. Not adopting a belief in a personal God.

All agnostics are strictly atheists.

Atheists deny the very existence of gods.
Agnostic state it is unknown if gods exist or not.

I am not an atheist because there is no conclusive proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods.

Now if there was presented to me absolute incontrovertible proof that gods exist I still would choose not to worship.

Choosing not to worship does not make one an atheist.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Atheists are no threat to religion.

No matter how hard they try, as the OP's poll shows.

There have always been atheists there always will be.

Yes, and they have always been in the minority.

 

[Blues Man]

No matter how hard they try, as the OP's poll shows.


Yes, and they have always been in the minority.

So why do you religious people fret about them so much?

 

[Seymour Flops]

So why do you religious people fret about them so much?

I don't know of a single religious person who frequently mentions atheists. It is the atheists who seem to obsess over the religious.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Atheists deny the very existence of gods.

That depends on semantics. Which definition you prefer.

I prefer the strictly correct definition, as indicated by the etymology.

"Not adopting a belief in gods"

Just as "amoral" does not mean asserting that morals do not exist.

Just as "asexual" does not mean asserting sex does not exist.

The definition I use is found in all dictionaries, right next to the one you are using. Yours is the colloquial meaning, mine is the strict definition.

One who does not adopt belief in personal gods but who also does not assert with confidence that no gods exist is an agnostic atheist. One who asserts that no gods exist is a gnostic atheist.

Convention would dictate that the latter is the special case of atheism, just as a square is the special case of a rectangle.

But we do not call rectangles, "non square rectangles", by convention.

So we can just say atheist instead of agnostic. If we want to denote the more rare and special case of gnostic atheism,then we add the modifier "gnostic".

All agnostics are strictly atheists. The only thing stopping us from shedding the word "agnostic" in general use is colloquialism.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't know of a single religious person who frequently mentions atheists. It is the atheists who seem to obsess over the religious.

And yet you just claimed that the religious beliefs of the USSR are being touted in this country as the better option.

Seems to me you are fretting