(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/05/FT_15.05.12_RLS2genReplacement_640px.png)
QuoteSince 1990, the fraction of Americans with no religious affiliation has nearly tripled, from about 8 percent to 22 percent. Over the next 20 years, this trend will accelerate: by 2020, there will be more of these "Nones" than Catholics, and by 2035, they will outnumber Protestants.
QuoteReligious beliefs are primarily determined by the environment people grow up in, including their family life and wider social influences. Although some people change religious affiliation later in life, most do not, so changes in the population are largely due to generational replacement.
The bolded part isn't all that surprising, but it's frequently contested by religious people who insist that their heartfelt beliefs are due to soul-searching and rational inquiry rather than indoctrination. By pure coincidence, the ultimate truth of the universe just happens to be their parents' religion and/or their society's predominant religion.
QuoteReligious belief is in decline, as well as confidence in religious institutions:
The fraction of people who say they “know God really exists and I have no doubts about it†has decreased from 64% in the 1990s to 58% now, and will approach 50% in the next 20 years.
At the same time the share of atheists and agnostics, based on self-reports, has increased from 6% to 10%, and will reach 14% around 2030.
Confidence in the people running organized religions is dropping rapidly: the fraction who report a “great deal†of confidence has dropped from 36% in the 1970s to 19% now, while the fraction with “hardly any†has increased from 17% to 26%. At 3-4 percentage points per decade, these are among the fastest changes we expect to see in this kind of data.
Interpretation of the Christian Bible has changed more slowly: the fraction of people who believe the Bible is “the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word†has declined from 36% in the 1980s to 32% now, little more than 1 percentage point per decade.
At the same time, the number of people who think the Bible is “an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man†has nearly doubled, from 13% to 22%. This skepticism will approach 30%, and probably overtake the literal interpretation within 20 years.
Sources:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-u-s-is-retreating-from-religion/
https://allendowney.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-retreat-from-religion-is.html
Let's pray for an acceleration of this trend.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2017, 05:59:22 PM
Let's pray for an acceleration of this trend.
But that's the opposite of what we should be doing! :razz:
what does 'other groups' count as, is this just about Christianity? if so what about other religious groups?
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 23, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
But that's the opposite of what we should be doing! :razz:
That's why I posted that way. :)
Quote from: Munch on October 23, 2017, 07:55:46 PM
what does 'other groups' count as, is this just about Christianity? if so what about other religious groups?
Mormons (not Christian), Muslims, Buddhists ... they are hot, as a high growth percentage, not just big in the total, yet.
Unaffiliated doesn't equal secular .. America is very different from Europe. It is more like India.
Unfortunately this is another incompetent poll. If you look at each generation, as it ages, their views change. Compare each generation, from 0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80 (the higher ages can't be polled yet for younger generations). Many people get into religion around 30 because of marriage and parenting. I did.
It is possible that the new generation will be more into personal spirituality, than organized religion, but I don't consider that a win for atheism, but for New Age.
Quote from: Munch on October 23, 2017, 07:55:46 PM
what does 'other groups' count as, is this just about Christianity? if so what about other religious groups?
Other groups are non-Christian religious groups. As you can see, they're not a large segment of the population collectively, and definitely not individually.
If the US were shrunk down to 101 people: 71 would be Christians, 23 would be unaffiliated, 2 would be Jewish, 1 would be Muslim, 1 would be Hindu, 1 would be Buddhist, and 2 would be from other non-Christian religions.
The above obviously isn't a super precise figure (there are slightly more Muslims than either Buddhists or Hindus), but it shows the ratios of these groups - a massive but waning Christian population, a smaller but waxing Unaffiliated, and a much smaller but stable everything else.
Sourece: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/14/if-the-u-s-had-100-people-charting-americans-religious-affiliations/
Also, here's a handy chart (http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/) with lots of interesting factoids.
How much is based on belief and how much is based on the fact that a Catholic mass can be boring? Or should I say going to mass will never be as exciting as staying home and watching youtube videos?
Going to church loses to going to Disneyland any day of the week.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 23, 2017, 05:39:44 PM
By pure coincidence, the ultimate truth of the universe just happens to be their parents' religion and/or their society's predominant religion.
That should be a red flag to any serious soul searching rational person on a quest... But it's probably not.
I can understand a lessening of religious fervor to "unaffiliated" because of wickedness of priests, and all the creationist bullshit. But that doesn't seem to directly translate into a hard line of logical thought. Most people still want a god, and seem to be striking off on their own to find another unsupported belief they can be comfortable with, rather than actually addressing the lack of credible evidence for any god in the first place. Still the data reporting the baby steps is heartening. People need to untie themselves from the authority of priests, hate mongering protestant minsters, and Know-it-all Creationist preachers who want to translate the mysterious contradictions of the Bible for the wretched lot of the unenlightened.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 23, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
But that's the opposite of what we should be doing! :razz:
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 23, 2017, 08:01:04 PM
That's why I posted that way. :)
I got it. Prayer is a poor substitute for thought. But then, most of the thinking believers do is a poor substitute for thought.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2017, 11:20:57 PM
If you look at each generation, as it ages, their views change. Compare each generation, from 0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80 (the higher ages can't be polled yet for younger generations).
I think I am aware of this, but I'm not sure. It does seem like a lot of my friends years ago, who didn't seem to give a damn about religion, eventually got into it, some going completely bonkers in the process. You say, "Because of Marriage," which I haven't actually noticed, but then haven't given that possibility that much thought either. My first guess was always that it had something to do with one's recognizing the actual reality of mortality as he gets older.
Quote from: SGOS on October 24, 2017, 10:31:00 AM
I think I am aware of this, but I'm not sure. It does seem like a lot of my friends years ago, who didn't seem to give a damn about religion, eventually got into it, some going completely bonkers in the process. You say, "Because of Marriage," which I haven't actually noticed, but then haven't given that possibility that much thought either. My first guess was always that it had something to do with one's recognizing the actual reality of mortality as he gets older.
People also often fall out of organized religion once their children are grown.
Quote from: Baruch on October 23, 2017, 11:20:57 PMUnfortunately this is another incompetent poll. If you look at each generation, as it ages, their views change. Compare each generation, from 0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80 (the higher ages can't be polled yet for younger generations).
The data (http://www.pewforum.org/2010/02/17/religion-among-the-millennials/) does indicate that religiosity/observance does increase with age, but younger generations start off much less religious than previous generations. Millennials are starting at 18% weekly religious attendance while the Greatest generation started out at 44%.
My sister just sent me this. At first, I thought it was going to be religious, but it could be taken either way. The comments on Utube show that it will be interpreted in opposite ways. But it kind of speaks to the issue of people leaving organized religion and finding their own path. Plus, it's relaxing to listen to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiypaURysz4
American nostalgia. But I like the title ... if "holy" isn't now, it doesn't matter. You won't find it in a past golden age nor in a future utopia.
Without miracles there can be no evidence for God. No wonder the Jews believed when seas parted for an entire army; And the Christians when water turned into wine, although that's undoubtedly part of some Las Vegas magic act too. But since God doesn't do obvious miracles anymore, Christians have resorted to cheese molds and successful outcomes to hernia operations. And my favorite, "Just look around you. Everything you see is a miracle!"
I've often thought that modern Religion survives by lowering it's standards for identifying miracles. Parting of seas was for the uneducated riff raff of the ancients who could only be convinced by a hard slap in the face. Today we make no such demands of a god that has apparently lost his steam and can no longer defy the laws of physics. Everything, including the most mundane, is holy.
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2017, 08:44:51 AMI've often thought that modern Religion survives by lowering it's standards for identifying miracles.
They have to. In the ancient past, you could come up with all sorts of things and no one could disprove it.
Nowadays, you have to be very careful about what you call a miracle. It has to be something real - or at least plausible - and then attribute that to God even if it seems like it's wholly within the scope of nature or human capability. That's why they've moved away from the sun standing still for several days (presumably, time was kept by some other means than the rising/setting of the sun) and the sea parting to Jesus toast and "miraculous" recoveries performed with modern medicine.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 25, 2017, 12:18:14 PM
They have to. In the ancient past, you could come up with all sorts of things and no one could disprove it.
Nowadays, you have to be very careful about what you call a miracle. It has to be something real - or at least plausible - and then attribute that to God even if it seems like it's wholly within the scope of nature or human capability. That's why they've moved away from the sun standing still for several days (presumably, time was kept by some other means than the rising/setting of the sun) and the sea parting to Jesus toast and "miraculous" recoveries performed with modern medicine.
In my life time I have not seen a miracle. Nor have I heard of one that was proven. A 'miracle' is something that would be unnatural--and there is no such thing.
I've never seen a miracle, either. But my standards might be too high, I suppose. And I've got a suspicion that those things reported in days of old never happened either.
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2017, 12:48:32 PM
I've never seen a miracle, either. But my standards might be too high, I suppose. And I've got a suspicion that those things reported in days of old never happened either.
Definition of miracle
1 :an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs the healing miracles described in the Gospels
2 :an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment The bridge is a miracle of engineering.
3 Christian Science :a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law.
I don't think any of those definitions exist. A miracle is simply impossible.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 25, 2017, 12:58:49 PM
Definition of miracle
2 :an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment The bridge is a miracle of engineering.
2, maybe, but it's an equivocation. It's not the same thing that a theist means when he talks about a miracle. We understand that such a thing is simply ":an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment." It's in the dictionary because it's commonly used to punctuate one's sense of awe or appreciation about something natural, and it's understood as such by most people. A person with Asperger's Syndrome may find it intolerable, but others let it slide with a polite nod.
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2017, 12:48:32 PM
I've never seen a miracle, either. But my standards might be too high, I suppose. And I've got a suspicion that those things reported in days of old never happened either.
I've seen some extraordinary rare events, but that's it. I once flipped a coin and it landed on edge. A flying squirrel landed in my friend's car while he was going 45 mph with the windows cracked less than a foot. Stuff like that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 25, 2017, 01:34:15 PM
I've seen some extraordinary rare events, but that's it. I once flipped a coin and it landed on edge. A flying squirrel landed in my friend's car while he was going 45 mph with the windows cracked less than a foot. Stuff like that.
Well, that's the type :2 miracle, and quite amazing for sure. I was once parked in a pleasant spot overlooking the ocean on a sunny day with the windows open. I was killing time before a job interview, when some small bird flew right through the car from the passenger side window and out the driver's side, and the little bugger crapped a splotch of bird shit on my clean shirt, so I went to the interview with a bird stain, which I explained during the interview, just to make sure people didn't think I was a slob.
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2017, 08:44:51 AM
And the Christians when water turned into wine, although that's undoubtedly part of some Las Vegas magic act too.
(https://img.memecdn.com/its-a-miracle_o_429476.jpg)
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 25, 2017, 12:42:41 PM
In my life time I have not seen a miracle. Nor have I heard of one that was proven. A 'miracle' is something that would be unnatural--and there is no such thing.
Your definition presupposes atheism ... so it is a circular argument. Signs ... weren't the miracles as defined by Enlightenment wags. Do you know, in Hebrew, that a "letter" is a sign ... something divine? Hence not incredible that the Muslims define the whole Quran, which has many letters, as a great miracle.
And myths are always symbolic, not to be understood literally. But clergy and their enemies ... make hay.
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2017, 08:44:51 AM
Without miracles there can be no evidence for God. No wonder the Jews believed when seas parted for an entire army; And the Christians when water turned into wine, although that's undoubtedly part of some Las Vegas magic act too. But since God doesn't do obvious miracles anymore, Christians have resorted to cheese molds and successful outcomes to hernia operations. And my favorite, "Just look around you. Everything you see is a miracle!"
I've often thought that modern Religion survives by lowering it's standards for identifying miracles. Parting of seas was for the uneducated riff raff of the ancients who could only be convinced by a hard slap in the face. Today we make no such demands of a god that has apparently lost his steam and can no longer defy the laws of physics. Everything, including the most mundane, is holy.
A jaded personality, a modern cynic, would claim thus. Those mythic events ... are mythic. But I have seen some very good stage magic. And I have personally experienced paranormal things. But none of that convinces me ... but then I am not a professional skeptic. Just a reasonable person, who avoids extreme views.
It never was "defy the laws of physics" ... in Jesus't time, no such idea existed. Since we now have "laws of physics" more or less, though in early modern times these were presumed to be anti-Catholic pro-Protestant proof of G-d's laws ... not proofs of materialism ... this provides a straw man argument for the materialists. But a straw man argument is so .. infallible!
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 25, 2017, 12:18:14 PM
They have to. In the ancient past, you could come up with all sorts of things and no one could disprove it.
Nowadays, you have to be very careful about what you call a miracle. It has to be something real - or at least plausible - and then attribute that to God even if it seems like it's wholly within the scope of nature or human capability. That's why they've moved away from the sun standing still for several days (presumably, time was kept by some other means than the rising/setting of the sun) and the sea parting to Jesus toast and "miraculous" recoveries performed with modern medicine.
Nobody was doing any proofs, except for egg headed gay Greeks. Until modern times, literal interpretation was more viable ... not so much today. But not everyone, not even in ancient times, took to literalism. Of course for materialists, literalism is a good thing, since it helps their argument.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 25, 2017, 12:58:49 PM
Definition of miracle
1 :an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs the healing miracles described in the Gospels
2 :an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment The bridge is a miracle of engineering.
3 Christian Science :a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law.
I don't think any of those definitions exist. A miracle is simply impossible.
A stawman invented by stupid theologians, and exploited by stupid materialists.
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2017, 01:27:05 PM
2, maybe, but it's an equivocation. It's not the same thing that a theist means when he talks about a miracle. We understand that such a thing is simply ":an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment." It's in the dictionary because it's commonly used to punctuate one's sense of awe or appreciation about something natural, and it's understood as such by most people. A person with Asperger's Syndrome may find it intolerable, but others let it slide with a polite nod.
There is a lot of autism posted here .. not that there is anything wrong with that. Socialism too ... which is anti-social, ironically.
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2017, 08:40:49 PM
Your definition presupposes atheism ... so it is a circular argument. Signs ... weren't the miracles as defined by Enlightenment wags. Do you know, in Hebrew, that a "letter" is a sign ... something divine? Hence not incredible that the Muslims define the whole Quran, which has many letters, as a great miracle.
I have not been an atheist all of my life. I have been skeptical--but at times open to 'miracles'--none came forth. I have come to understand that a theist insists that a miracle is other-wordly; there is no other world. And no miracles. All that happens has a rational reason; and if we don't know what that is right now does not mean we won't learn.
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2017, 08:47:07 PM
A stawman invented by stupid theologians, and exploited by stupid materialists.
Oh Wise One; Sage of the Ages--what is you (or the real) definition of what a miracle is.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 25, 2017, 08:48:41 PM
I have not been an atheist all of my life. I have been skeptical--but at times open to 'miracles'--none came forth. I have come to understand that a theist insists that a miracle is other-wordly; there is no other world. And no miracles. All that happens has a rational reason; and if we don't know what that is right now does not mean we won't learn.
Carl Jung was disappointed as a boy, when nothing happened at first communion. Something did happen at mine, but in retrospect ... meh. I did experience what Karl Otto called ... the numinous. But that just made me curious about religion, it didn't make a Christian of me. It is all psychology ... and if you don't like psychology, then you are all mad ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2017, 01:18:41 PM
People also often fall out of organized religion once their children are grown.
That was an unusually thoughtful and non-joking post. Thank you.
Quote from: Baruch on October 25, 2017, 08:40:49 PM
Your definition presupposes atheism ... so it is a circular argument. Signs ... weren't the miracles as defined by Enlightenment wags. Do you know, in Hebrew, that a "letter" is a sign ... something divine? Hence not incredible that the Muslims define the whole Quran, which has many letters, as a great miracle.
And myths are always symbolic, not to be understood literally. But clergy and their enemies ... make hay.
Actually, atheism precedes theism. There was surely a time before the ideas of the vaguest theism came to imagination of some poor misbegotten desperate fool.
Once, there was no imagined deities. Then some poor confused sap saw a fire destroy his tent or some meteorite wreck something and conjured up the idea of "other beings". Invisible, powerful, unstoppable.
If I had a time machine, I would go back and kill that idiot!
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Actually, atheism precedes theism. There was surely a time before the ideas of the vaguest theism came to imagination of some poor misbegotten desperate fool.
Once, there was no imagined deities. Then some poor confused sap saw a fire destroy his tent or some meteorite wreck something and conjured up the idea of "other beings". Invisible, powerful, unstoppable.
If I had a time machine, I would go back and kill that idiot!
As I imagine it, the sun itself would provide all the wonder and awe one would need to construct a god around it. And that god could then supply answers to all of their 'why' questions.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 12:18:03 PM
As I imagine it, the sun itself would provide all the wonder and awe one would need to construct a god around it. And that god could then supply answers to all of there 'why' questions.
I will always remember that preacher I saw on TV, who was trying to reconcile science and religion, while making a case for each. He orated with a magnanimously affected air: "Science can answer the 'How' questions, bur religion answers the 'Why' questions." I wasn't all that familiar with logic at the time, but I remember thinking, "Yeah, it may explain why, but the answers sound like they are pulled out of thin air." And I called myself a believer at the time. I felt unsatisfied but just shrugged it off.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 12:18:03 PM
As I imagine it, the sun itself would provide all the wonder and awe one would need to construct a god around it. And that god could then supply answers to all of there 'why' questions.
So, the argument is that frightened people started religions?
Bullshiters sitting around camel-dung campfires started religions.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 12:41:59 PM
So, the argument is that frightened people started religions?
Yes. And they use that fear to this very day to control the sheeple. I can imagine that the entire world amazed and frightened the first humans. They controlled very little of what was around them and deep fear of the unknown must have been their constant companion.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 12:45:25 PM
Bullshiters sitting around camel-dung campfires started religions.
Well, where camels lived, yes. Or even where they didn't. One group could import camel dung as "the magic"...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 12:52:58 PM
Well, where camels lived, yes. Or even where they didn't. One group could import camel dung as "the magic"...
In the US it bison-dung. The Middle East had camel. "A dung fire by any other name would smell as sweet..."
Possibly well meaning bull shitters, but none that knew what they were talking about. Which is pretty much the definition of bull shitting.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 12:51:06 PM
Yes. And they use that fear to this very day to control the sheeple. I can imagine that the entire world amazed and frightened the first humans. They controlled very little of what was around them and deep fear of the unknown must have been their constant companion.
And we figured out how stuff works... I'm not trying to push you. Just saying that religion is the catch-all of the unknown. And we keep eliminating "the unknown". And have from the first sharpened flake.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Actually, atheism precedes theism. There was surely a time before the ideas of the vaguest theism came to imagination of some poor misbegotten desperate fool.
Once, there was no imagined deities. Then some poor confused sap saw a fire destroy his tent or some meteorite wreck something and conjured up the idea of "other beings". Invisible, powerful, unstoppable.
If I had a time machine, I would go back and kill that idiot!
There would just be another one shortly after.
Also, I'm not entirely sure it was a completely foolish idea
at the time. (Extra emphasis on at the time, lest someone misinterpret me and conclude that I think religion is currently a rational idea)
At the time, people knew next to nothing about nature. Strange, unexpected things must've really freaked them out. Stuff like lightning, wildfires, earthquakes, epidemics, floods, and eclipses must've seemed daunting and unpredictable. So they tried to understand these things as if they were people - volcanoes erupt because the volcano god is angry, etc. They tried to cut deals with these fledgling gods by offering sacrifices - like sacrificing a bull to appease Neptune. You can see a shadow of this mentality alive today with gamblers and "lucky" dice, where dice are said to hate or love the roller.
It goes without saying that this doesn't actually work, but it was the first fumbling attempt to understand what was going on, and people might've used it to divine some patterns in nature (the storm god in North Carolina is angriest in autumn). So it might've brought some measure of understanding and/or solace to early people who didn't have access to much actual information.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 12:55:05 PM
In the US it bison-dung. The Middle East had camel. "A dung fire by any other name would smell as sweet..."
Except camel-dung would be more HUGE and Whartonish...
Quote from: SGOS on October 27, 2017, 12:55:46 PM
Possibly well meaning bull shitters, but none that knew what they were talking about. Which is pretty much the definition of bull shitting.
The shamans probably got it going. They were the wizards and people expected more of them, especially when they became secretive about their "magic" and claimed special knowledge. From special information about when the aurochs would return to why the lightning flashed in the sky is an easy step.
Roast pig on spit turned over a dung fire. I don't know what to say.
Quote from: SGOS on October 27, 2017, 12:58:36 PM
Roast pig on spit turned over a dung fire. I don't know what to say.
How about "the kids don't go hungry tonight."
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 27, 2017, 12:56:27 PM
There would just be another one shortly after.
Also, I'm not entirely sure it was a completely foolish idea at the time. (Extra emphasis on at the time, lest someone misinterpret me and conclude that I think religion is currently a rational idea)
At the time, people knew next to nothing about nature. Strange, unexpected things must've really freaked them out. Stuff like lightning, wildfires, earthquakes, epidemics, floods, and eclipses must've seemed daunting and unpredictable. So they tried to understand these things as if they were people - volcanoes erupt because the volcano god is angry, etc. They tried to cut deals with these fledgling gods by offering sacrifices - like sacrificing a bull to appease Neptune. You can see a shadow of this mentality alive today with gamblers and "lucky" dice, where dice are said to hate or love the roller.
It goes without saying that this doesn't actually work, but it was the first fumbling attempt to understand what was going on, and people might've used it to divine some patterns in nature (the storm god in North Carolina is angriest in autumn). So it might've brought some measure of understanding and/or solace to early people who didn't have access to much actual information.
I fully understand. Just saying that stupid superstition is still stupid superstition and we ought to be escaping that by now except for stupid superstitious people.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 12:58:27 PM
The shamans probably got it going. They were the wizards and people expected more of them, especially when they became secretive about their "magic" and claimed special knowledge. From special information about when the aurochs would return to why the lightning flashed in the sky is an easy step.
Everywhere you go, some opportunist is trying con you for his own purposes. Today, these guys are on TV. Or in the White House.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 01:00:56 PMJust saying that stupid superstition is still stupid superstition and we ought to be escaping that by now except for stupid superstitious people.
I agree.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
How about "the kids don't go hungry tonight."
I could get into to hunting techniques, but let's just say that older people (shamans) knew the seasons and migration routes and figured out they had a great easy life by "predicting" things.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 12:56:01 PM
And we figured out how stuff works... I'm not trying to push you. Just saying that religion is the catch-all of the unknown. And we keep eliminating "the unknown". And have from the first sharpened flake.
Hey, Cavebear, push away. :)) Yes, religion is the catch-all of the unknown. And universally, what does the unknown engender in just about all of us? Fear. At least great discomfort. Without the fear we would simply be curious and investigate the unknown; but when survival is at stake, the unknown is not really all that welcome. Fear and religion go together like peas and carrots do for Forrest Gump.
Quote from: SGOS on October 27, 2017, 01:01:23 PM
Everywhere you go, some opportunist is trying con you for his own purposes. Today, these guys are on TV. Or in the White House.
And in the churches.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 01:04:53 PM
Hey, Cavebear, push away. :)) Yes, religion is the catch-all of the unknown. And universally, what does the unknown engender in just about all of us? Fear. At least great discomfort. Without the fear we would simply be curious and investigate the unknown; but when survival is at stake, the unknown is not really all that welcome. Fear and religion go together like peas and carrots do for Forrest Gump.
Never saw that movie, but I make a great smoked pork stew, so it makes sense. Fear and religion go hand in hand. But courage and thought and religion do not.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 27, 2017, 01:05:55 PM
And in the churches.
Excellent point. And well briefly said. I get wordy.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 01:08:08 PM
Fear and religion go hand in hand. But courage and thought and religion do not.
I like that!
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 01:04:47 PM
I could get into to hunting techniques, but let's just say that older people (shamans) knew the seasons and migration routes and figured out they had a great easy life by "predicting" things.
The trick is to lock up the information that isn't generally known. Everybody would know snow's coming when the leaves turn colors. They would have to claim to know how the stars affected the hunting or something like that. But being a haruspex would be a skilled that had to be trained.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 01:15:23 PM
The trick is to lock up the information that isn't generally known. Everybody would know snow's coming when the leaves turn colors. They would have to claim to know how the stars affected the hunting or something like that. But being a haruspex would be a skilled that had to be trained.
Inspecting entrails? I gutted a lactating bow-shot doe once and that was all *I* ever wanted to know. I stopped hunting.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 01:15:23 PM
The trick is to lock up the information that isn't generally known. Everybody would know snow's coming when the leaves turn colors. They would have to claim to know how the stars affected the hunting or something like that. But being a haruspex would be a skilled that had to be trained.
Oh got it. Vagueness combined with experience means "breakfast in bed" for the old guys. LOL!.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 12:41:59 PM
So, the argument is that frightened people started religions?
If you aren't frightened, then you are psychotic.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 12:58:27 PM
The shamans probably got it going. They were the wizards and people expected more of them, especially when they became secretive about their "magic" and claimed special knowledge. From special information about when the aurochs would return to why the lightning flashed in the sky is an easy step.
You mean like Pythagoras? ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 28, 2017, 04:43:22 AM
You mean like Pythagoras? ;-)
Pythagoras came after the meme was long established. You can give him credit for a lot of things, but he didn't invent religion.
Quote from: SGOS on October 28, 2017, 05:18:19 AM
Pythagoras came after the meme was long established. You can give him credit for a lot of things, but he didn't invent religion.
He along with Thales, invented your religion. The holy number and holy materialism and holy rationalism. Great accomplishments to be sure, foundational for modernity (but not much impact prior to 1500 CE). Of course the scholars of Babylon and Memphis already had studied these things, but empirically. It was the Greek geeks (not the average Spartan) who made all that ... theoretical.
Ah ... modernity. Neocolonialism and neoliberalism ... I don't know if I should goose-step with my right or left leg first ;-) ... but as an Anglophone, I am definitely an uber-mensch.
Quote from: Baruch on October 28, 2017, 02:42:47 PM
He along with Thales, invented your religion. The holy number and holy materialism and holy rationalism. Great accomplishments to be sure, foundational for modernity (but not much impact prior to 1500 CE). Of course the scholars of Babylon and Memphis already had studied these things, but empirically. It was the Greek geeks (not the average Spartan) who made all that ... theoretical.
Ah ... modernity. Neocolonialism and neoliberalism ... I don't know if I should goose-step with my right or left leg first ;-) ... but as an Anglophone, I am definitely an uber-mensch.
Religion: I fear something and don't understand it, therefore it is not understandable and must be worshipped.
Science: I don't understand something, therefore I will research it it find and answer. And revise it when new facts are found.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 01:10:36 AM
Religion: I fear something and don't understand it, therefore it is not understandable and must be worshipped.
Science: I don't understand something, therefore I will research it it find and answer. And revise it when new facts are found.
Human ... fear everything, understand nothing, worship money.
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 07:18:32 AM
Human ... fear everything, understand nothing, worship money.
I do not worship money. I could live big but I don't. I like "relaxed" as a lifestyle.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 08:18:32 AM
I do not worship money. I could live big but I don't. I like "relaxed" as a lifestyle.
You are a wise bear, not a cave bear.
Is he smarter than the average bear?
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 01, 2017, 05:01:58 PM
Is he smarter than the average bear?
That's Yogi--can you Ber-a it?
I demand that someone close this thread before things get out of hand. :bedtime:
Quote from: SGOS on November 01, 2017, 10:06:14 PM
I demand that someone close this thread before things get out of hand. :bedtime:
Because Cavebear can't tolerate positive feedback? I think rather the opposite is true.
Quote from: SGOS on October 25, 2017, 12:48:32 PM
I've never seen a miracle, either. But my standards might be too high, I suppose.
If your standard is the scientific method, that's already too high a bar for miracles to clear.
If I had to define a miracle, it would be an event that cannot be explained
even by chance -- that is, it genuinely needs to be physically impossible, not merely very improbable. Only under those circumstances is an appeal to the supernatural remotely plausible.
(https://pmpaspeakingofprecision.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/then-a-miracle-occurs-logic-1050x700.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/5HBMopg.gif)
Quote from: trdsf on November 02, 2017, 10:52:45 AM
If your standard is the scientific method, that's already too high a bar for miracles to clear.
If I had to define a miracle, it would be an event that cannot be explained even by chance -- that is, it genuinely needs to be physically impossible, not merely very improbable. Only under those circumstances is an appeal to the supernatural remotely plausible.
A good rhetorical position to take, but only rhetorical. Rhetoric means ... getting to win an argument before the other guy even opens his mouth. See Sun Tzu on Speaking. I take the exact opposite definition ... because I am not looking to win by any means necessary. I don't even care to win.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 02, 2017, 11:45:45 AM
(https://pmpaspeakingofprecision.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/then-a-miracle-occurs-logic-1050x700.jpg)
Typical technical textbook at my college. It is discouraging when even the text writer is trying to cover up his own ignorance. He does "miracle here" because he can't bridge the gap himself ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on November 01, 2017, 10:22:26 PM
Because Cavebear can't tolerate positive feedback? I think rather the opposite is true.
I tolerate both positive and negative feedback. One can't be an atheist and not be used to the negative feedback. Anything positive is nice.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 02, 2017, 11:45:45 AM
(https://pmpaspeakingofprecision.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/then-a-miracle-occurs-logic-1050x700.jpg)
But keep in mind the caption there was something like "I think there may be a problem here".
Quote from: trdsf on November 02, 2017, 10:52:45 AM
If your standard is the scientific method, that's already too high a bar for miracles to clear.
If I had to define a miracle, it would be an event that cannot be explained even by chance -- that is, it genuinely needs to be physically impossible, not merely very improbable. Only under those circumstances is an appeal to the supernatural remotely plausible.
Completely agree. A "miracle" has to be outside all the laws of nature as we understand them. Stopping a planet's rotation temporarily, for example.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2017, 11:32:01 PM
Completely agree. A "miracle" has to be outside all the laws of nature as we understand them. Stopping a planet's rotation temporarily, for example.
And without everything on the planet's surface being flung eastwards at about a thousand miles an hour. And restarting it without everything being dragged westward at the same speed.
Quote from: trdsf on November 02, 2017, 10:52:45 AMIf I had to define a miracle, it would be an event that cannot be explained even by chance -- that is, it genuinely needs to be physically impossible, not merely very improbable. Only under those circumstances is an appeal to the supernatural remotely plausible.
And it goes without saying that physically impossible things tend to not happen very often.
Even stuff that may have seemed impossible at the time - like pulsars - become a whole lot less impossible when more is discovered about them. So there's simply no niche for miracles - either it's understood and definitely not a miracle or not understood and it's too early to tell.
Quote from: trdsf on November 04, 2017, 12:15:15 AM
And without everything on the planet's surface being flung eastwards at about a thousand miles an hour. And restarting it without everything being dragged westward at the same speed.
Nice to see real physics involved in a discussion on miracles. If it had happened that the Earth was stopped in rotation, the surface structures would have benn flung off at 1.000 MPH, the winds would have increased by that amount, and (possibly) the crust would have been flung off.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 04, 2017, 12:19:16 AM
And it goes without saying that physically impossible things tend to not happen very often.
Even stuff that may have seemed impossible at the time - like pulsars - become a whole lot less impossible when more is discovered about them. So there's simply no niche for miracles - either it's understood and definitely not a miracle or not understood and it's too early to tell.
But ape men understand nothing. Scientist ape men perhaps, but the rest of us ... understand nothing at all. Unfortunately what we keep discovering is that Nature wants very badly to kill us. A nearby pulsar would sterilize our planet very quickly from the radiation streaming from its magnetic poles. If that did happen, it wouldn't be a miracle, but a job well done.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2017, 11:28:04 PM
But keep in mind the caption there was something like "I think there may be a problem here".
Never seen it with that. Stands alone to me.
Quote from: trdsf on November 04, 2017, 12:15:15 AM
And without everything on the planet's surface being flung eastwards at about a thousand miles an hour. And restarting it without everything being dragged westward at the same speed.
I don't know, it didn't seem that hard when Superman did it...
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 06, 2017, 05:26:31 PM
I don't know, it didn't seem that hard when Superman did it...
Oh I love Superman. Somehow, flying around the Earth fast reverses time. My favorite thing was when, in one comic, he held a jet from flying. Now wait a few... It is one thing to use his super strength to hold something when he has something else to hold onto or crush stuff in his hands (never mind that COAL is plant material and can't be turned into diamond).
But when he holds a flying jet just by standing on the Earth, all he has is his weight. And I don't think even DC Comics claimed he weighed 80 tons. That would have crushed the floors of The Daily Planet offices. LOL! IIRC, Marvel comics even made fun of that decades ago. 'Nuff Said'...
but but but Superman did a gradual slow down. He didnt stop the earth on a dime. It was probably still fast enough to make huge tidal waves.
If we were talking about Noah’s flood and Joshua’s stopping the sun on the same day there might be some truth to the story ;-)
Quote from: fencerider on November 11, 2017, 12:50:05 PM
but but but Superman did a gradual slow down. He didnt stop the earth on a dime. It was probably still fast enough to make huge tidal waves.
If we were talking about Noah’s flood and Joshua’s stopping the sun on the same day there might be some truth to the story ;-)
Well he did undo the earthquake. But he still can't brush his teeth when there is kryptonite around.
BTW, have you ever considered how massive his planet must have been to spread so much kryptonite around 360 degrees from so far away? There shouldn't be an atom of the stuff in the solar system.
And Lex Luthor can find a whole chunk of it whenever he wants. Silly stuff. Not like the logic of being bitten by a radioactive spider and then being able to climb walls.
*coff, coff*
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 01:03:09 PM
Well he did undo the earthquake. But he still can't brush his teeth when there is kryptonite around.
BTW, have you ever considered how massive his planet must have been to spread so much kryptonite around 360 degrees from so far away? There shouldn't be an atom of the stuff in the solar system.
And Lex Luthor can find a whole chunk of it whenever he wants. Silly stuff. Not like the logic of being bitten by a radioactive spider and then being able to climb walls.
*coff, coff*
Kryptonite ... strange meteorite meme. In an old Dr Who, the meteorites were aliens, who turned into giant plant monsters, beloved by "Green Thumbs" everywhere.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:11:09 PM
Kryptonite ... strange meteorite meme. In an old Dr Who, the meteorites were aliens, who turned into giant plant monsters, beloved by "Green Thumbs" everywhere.
Probably looked over by the unmoving angels.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 02:13:19 PM
Probably looked over by the unmoving angels.
Those are rated as the scariest Dr Who villains of all time!
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:11:09 PM
Kryptonite ... strange meteorite meme. In an old Dr Who, the meteorites were aliens, who turned into giant plant monsters, beloved by "Green Thumbs" everywhere.
Either that, or sentient plastic.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 11, 2017, 10:40:55 PM
Either that, or sentient plastic.
Poly-esther? Sounds like a cross between a parrot and a Jewish woman ;-))
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 01:57:18 AM
Oh I love Superman. Somehow, flying around the Earth fast reverses time. My favorite thing was when, in one comic, he held a jet from flying. Now wait a few... It is one thing to use his super strength to hold something when he has something else to hold onto or crush stuff in his hands (never mind that COAL is plant material and can't be turned into diamond).
But when he holds a flying jet just by standing on the Earth, all he has is his weight. And I don't think even DC Comics claimed he weighed 80 tons. That would have crushed the floors of The Daily Planet offices. LOL! IIRC, Marvel comics even made fun of that decades ago. 'Nuff Said'...
Did you notice that the lump of coal and the diamond were the same size?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 12, 2017, 01:00:45 PM
Did you notice that the lump of coal and the diamond were the same size?
Yes, but I didn't want to quibble too much in one post. As I also didn't mention that when he caught bullets in his hands they should have been flattened, knives don't actually shatter, and he doesn't routinely snap pens in his hand, LOL!