Those percentages (32% under 30, 21% 30-49, 9% over 65) CLEARLY show an increase in atheism at the obvious expense of christianity, it being the major religion in the US (god doesn't know why), are you blind?

You do realize as people age they are more likely to turn to religion right? If we were to do a line graph of age and religiousity there would be a straight line proving this.

It's almost pointless to argue with a Christian about their faith. I've been learning this more and more as I get older, and with time I will probably stop doing it all together.

I'm guilty of creating this thread. I knew that pointing out the contradictions in the Bible concerning the resurrection story wouldn't cause any Christians to change their mind, but I enjoy the discussion and maybe not everyone knew about these particular contradictions.

So make of what you will of those contradictions in the Bible. Believers will never classify them as contradictions, but rather different eyewitnesses, historical context, have to have faith, etc, but they are what they are.

Believers are going to believe and non-believe are not going to believe. Just how it is. But to all those out there on the fence and who posses the ability to critically analyze a text, make what you will of the inconsistencies in the Bible.

Overall, I just encourage people to challenge their assumptions and think hard about life, their humanity, and the universe. We may not always agree, but hopefully we can remain civil and grow to respect each other's opinions.

I don't care what people self-identify as in this case. It doesn't matter. Don't believe in god? You're an atheist.

I never said the enlightenment killed christianity. I refuted your claim that all the great minds throughout history that have criticised religion have had no effect on christianity.

Likewise the US doesn't really matter either. Within what could have once been called catholic christendom we have whole countries that are vastly majority atheistic. We have secular states and the power of the catholic church has waned enormously. To say that 'People throughout history, far brighter, better read, much wiser have tried to cast doubt on Christianity and guess what, they had minuscule effect on the faith' is ridiculous. They've had an immense effect on the faith. Not just in it's number of adherents but also in it's core beliefs. Christianity changes it's views of the world according to what is generally accepted. We laugh at YEC's now but if it weren't for many of these great thinkers we would still believe God created man as is about 6,000 years ago. if it weren't for the people that challenge religion we would be burning homosexuals alive or stoning them like they do in Sudan instead of having gay christian churches.

Great atheist thinkers, through the enlightenment and beyond, philosophers and scientists have all had huge effects on the Christian faith and will continue to do so. The christianity of 200 years from now will be unrecognisable to the christians of today - just like the puritanical christianity of 200 years ago would seem dangerously fundamentalist to them.

This post was edited by Scaly on Aug 3 2015 03:44pm

Don't mistake being critical of the text with critically analyzing the text.

tl;dr



Comes back and posts more


Before enlightenment: Christianity only really dominant in Europe

Currently after the enlightenment: Christianity the dominant religion of North America, South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Australia. Only place it's not the dominant religion is Asia, Muslim North Africa and parts of Oceania.

Thanks for playing ol chap.

False. I am a believer who is more than willing to accept their are contradictions in the holy text. How else do you think a book turns out after hundreds if not thousands of edits and translations into other languages?

I believe that the holy text was divinely inspired, but much of that was likely changed and lost over the years, not to the point that i believe the overall message has been tarnished. If you want to search for factual discrepancies in the Bible you will find many, i believe these are as i said, a result of the editing and translation process.

I also wholeheartedly believe that some portions of the bible are not divinely inspired at all, but added later to serve other ends, such as cultural sheepherding which was an important role of the leaders (both religious and non-religious) of the day. The bible's condemnation of homosexuality is my greatest example, i simply dont believe it is a sin, whatsoever.

Im sure your next question is how can i possibly know which portions are divinely inspired, partially divinely inspired, or not divinely inspired whatsoever? I cant, i admit fully that i cant, so instead i simply approach my religious study with the overall idea that some is true and some is false. This way i essentially take each passage with a grain of salt and decide how large that grain is for each passage. Upon re-reads or re-studying a certain topic i often change my mind completely or just slightly alter my stance. I personally believe that having concrete beliefs about anything is dangerous, so i try not to walk down that road.

(TL;DR) I cant be sure any part of the bible is true or false, so i decide how to interpret each passage on each re-read, but never take a concrete unchanging stance.

k... well if ur just gonna be childish ... The post you just made is prerefuted in the one you quoted but didn't read. We're done here until you learn how to converse like an adult.

This post was edited by Scaly on Aug 3 2015 04:04pm

Your point initially was that the philosophers of the enlightenment somehow cast irrefutable doubt on Christianity (even though many of them were actually Christians and had many pro-Christianity philosophies) and as a result of that Christianity has been on the decline. According to you thats why we've seen such a great rise in atheism even though hundreds of years later atheism still remains a small minority compared to deism.

Like i said thanks for playing, you've proven absolutely nothing, i think it's time for you to return to the bat cave and sulk a bit ol chap

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Aug 3 2015 04:19pm

You make a horribad cheerleader for whatever team your on. Scaly does attack religion and typically Christianity, I imagine because it is the most common religion here in d2jsp land. You shift attacks in mid stride from pointing out his attack on religion to blaming his dislike(hate) of it on it's intolerance of transgenders. But that statement is a lie.

I've seen holier than thou Christians attack Scaly using his lifestyle as a reason, so naturally he fights back as almost anyone here would. But those individuals may be using religion as a weapon. Christianity it's self certainly isn't as a whole condemning transgenders. You personally are judging Scaly as immoral not Christianity.

This is what gives religion a bad name, when people use it as a weapon to discriminate against people who behave in a way that they don't agree with. Nowhere in the gospel does the Lord say to judge your brother and if you find him wanting cast him out or declare him a sinner. If you can find verse in the gospels like that I'd like to see it. I wonder why the younger people are turning away from religion when they see the extremists on TV and in the news. drawing their damning judgment on any flavor of lifestyle that they perceive as dirty or nasty.