Are we a nation of non believers?

No!

moonshine,
You have quite a poor understanding both of scripture and of history.

No king made up his own version, but King Henry VIII's desire to divorce his first wife and the subsequent split with the Pope over that issue did enable Protestantism to come to England.

And according to the Bible, God promised Abraham many descendants, but it was his wife, not God, who told him to shag her handmaiden.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

runner,

I wonder how many thinking people are deterred from Christianity because the absurd and insulting lies you spread make Christians look stupid?

A few centuries ago, many Christians believed (based on a prevailing interpretation of the story of Noah) that God would not let any species go extinct.

Today of course, I think any rational person can see that's rubbish.
But do you think "the gullible continue to sign up for the extinction faith based on the evolution myth"?
If not, what's the difference?

leoj,

Yes, I’m aware of that. Feel free to use the term ‘atheist’, though. In taking the word back, by using it ourselves, we can help to dispel the myth that non-believers are all communists and eat babies.

--

Aidan writes: “I wonder how many thinking people are deterred from Christianity because the absurd and insulting lies you spread make Christians look stupid?”

Yeah, well, it certainly didn’t make my de-conversion any harder.

When I was a Christian (and probably still today), Christians like runner were a dime a dozen, not the rarity they’re sometimes assumed by atheists to be. Although, from memory, most weren’t so hateful or vitriolic.

Unfortunately, though, telling Christians like runner how wrong they are only strengthens their belief. In psychology, this is known as the ‘Backfire Effect’, and Christian doctrine is set up in a way such that it can contribute to this phenomenon on two levels:

Firstly, a move by Christians away from a literal interpretation of Genesis is often brushed off as the devil gaining a foothold on mankind, signalling the end times prophesised in the Bible. Secondly, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus (unintentionally?) encourages people like runner to act like jerks by telling Christians that the more persecuted they are, the more right they are with God (Matthew 5:10-12).

--

NathanJ,

I’ve been thinking about this claim of yours (that there are all these people out their learning and discovering to the detriment of themselves and others, while insisting that everyone else do the same) and the only people I could think of, who might engage in learning and discovery to such an extent, are severely autistic people. But they’re hardly going to be concerned with whether religious people are doing the same as them.

No, I don’t think these people you speak of exist at all. I think they are a caricature straw man you’ve set up to make education sound just as potentially-harmful as religion. In fact, it sounds specifically devised as a response to the harm of religious belief that we’ve discussed in the past.

"you’re going to hate me for this, mhaze"

I don't hate you AJ and I don't hate the way you (mis)use the fallacy table. I find it mildly amusing.

The fallacy meme is a tool. Its a way for the observer of an argument to analysis and/or deconstruct an argument. It has its limits but it can be useful when correctly applied. But too often, you don't use it as a tool - you use it as a weapon. As I pointed out in a previous thread, just asserting that an argument using tradition is wrong because there's a 'Tradition Fallacy' completely misses the point and purpose of the Fallacy List. Correctly used, it should merely indicate to the user that an argument using tradition MIGHT be invalid if that's the sole basis for the argument. Its the start-point for analysis, not the end-point.

A hammer is a useful tool when used as a tool. Its a sub-optimal weapon.

"That’s the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,"
QED

"you have interpreted a pattern where one does not exist."
I wasn't proposing a pattern. I was just having a little fun pointing out that those bending the knee come from both both sides of the ideological divide. I suspect you (mis)interpreted that so as to allow the, again, misuse of the fallacy meme.

"Why would it if it’s a mystery? You’re not fallaciously appealing to a god of the gaps now, are you?"

I wasn't appealing to any God..and I don't find any God appealing. I was just having a little dig at the notion that we 'know' about the universe, that we can give a kid a book that'll set them straight on how things work. Its a conceit of this generation (probably all generations) that we've now got it worked out. So give a kid a book that offers an alternate view but don't pretend that we KNOW which view is correct, or that another view might arise that is more correct.

/tbc

/cont

"To which values do you refer, and how did they do that?"

Perhaps you could ask yourself some difficult questions. Why did modern democracy grow out of Christian countries? Why did the notion of human rights, personal liberty, freedom of speech arise first in Christian countries? Why were Christian countries the first in history to actively work to end slavery? Why did the industrial revolution and all the good that entails commence in the Christian west? Honestly answer that and you'll start to understand why our inherited value systems needs to salvaged.

" that Christianity begrudgingly adopted..."

There's no question that Christianity's history is not exemplary. But the changes were adopted. There used to be a consensus (where have I heard that word before?) that the continents were fixed. (And let's not even go down the sewer-hole of eugenics). When science begrudgingly adopts a new understanding based on new facts we laud its flexibility and tend to ignore its previous failings. But when Christians adopt new understandings based upon new data they are told that they must continue to be saddled with the old failings of their like from 20 generations ago. Today's Christians aren't yesterday's Christians.

By non believers you speak of spiritual or institutional?
Spiritual is a personal sense of perception within an individual that is only discussed, or revealed, to those close to that individual.
Institutional as regards to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and so on is a set of beliefs passed on in family, and re-assessed at a later stage in life as to the spiritual course to embrace.
The problems occur when politics uses these sensitive areas of belief to instigate a movement for and or against one another. A means of social deunification, divide and confuse, then proclaim to have the solution.

None of these social religious institutions have clean hands...so for any to lay claim to the moral high ground is hypocritical.
Social interaction can only proceed if respect for each other is present, and that goes for the beliefs, spiritual or otherwise, of any and all individuals.

You don't have to agree with the beliefs of each other to share life's experiences.
Yes, it is easier to relax with like minded but even there, respect is essential.
Respect is a social sense of recognition that no one is subservient to another and entitled to the same conditions as benefit each and all.
A sense of 'entitlement' arises when 'respect' is cast aside.
If societies are able to acquire that degree of awareness then political divide is not possible.
The spiritual beliefs of individuals can never be used against them.