Non Religious Population on The Decline

[ding]

So now let me address this comment of yours.

I've come across people like you quite often. What you "know" is more about what you want to know, rather than what actually exists. You said it yourself, your views are based on "observation, reason and experience." Not on research, not on study, but on what you see around you. If it's cold outside, your observation is that the Earth isn't cold, your experience is that it's cold. Reason suggests therefore that there isn't any global warming. This isn't me saying you reject global warming, by the way, this is just an example of how some people process information. You can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation.

You come across people like me quite often? What I know is more about what I want to know, rather than what actually exists? You don't know what I know and what I don't know. You don't know if I have been subjective or objective and you certainly don't know what kind of person I am.

Yes, my beliefs are based upon observation, reason and experience. Just like everyone else on this planet. Are you suggesting that you don't rely upon observation, reason and experience? Is there something wrong with relying upon observation, reason and experience?

Just because I didn't mention research and study doesn't mean the information I rely upon wasn't researched and studied. I'm fairly certain that when it comes to science what I know has been thoroughly researched and studied. In fact, when it comes to understanding the evolution of space and time which is the only evidence we have to evaluate the existence of a creator, it has been thoroughly researched, studied and evaluated.

As for your analogy that because it is cold outside that there can be no global warming, that is a red herring and has no bearing on what I rely upon for my beliefs. The reality is that the planet has been warming for the last 22,000 years as we are in an interglacial cycle and given that our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles we can expect it to warm further.

And lastly, I can't possibly understand a lot of issues just by experience and observation? You do understand this is the basis for science, right? So, yes, Yes, I can understand a lot of issues through experience and observation and reason.

If we go back to your argument, which was that you haven't met an atheist that has impressed you, what do we get?

Does this mean atheists aren't intelligent? No, it doesn't.

You've used your observations and evidence you've seen to make a case, but as far as I can tell the statement you made wasn't made with much effort at all.

This is what I've seen here, and therefore all atheists aren't very intelligent.

I'm no atheist. I could point to atheists being the same as religious people, they're believers. Too many people on forums like this BELIEVE what they want to believe.

"I believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" "Fuck off you moron"

Is more or less the normal way a conversation happens on here.

With Atheists it's "I don't believe there's a God." "Can you prove it?" and it doesn't usually end in insults, but it also doesn't end up in a logical argument either.

I can go out and make my case for my argument.

You didn't do that. You merely said "this is what I see" without really backing your stuff up.

You could have provided more information.

HOWEVER..... I understand that a lot of people on this forum don't really like reading too much. You give them enough information and they merely say "no", so you feel like you've wasted your time.

In talking to you these past few posts I've learned a lot about you, but still, other things I'm not sure about and I still have assumptions that I can't disspell.


Here's the question then.

Do you think you can understand about atheists just by reading what they write in this forum?

You are still putting words in my mouth. Make that argument without doing that and we can continue. It would be illogical to have a discussion that starts with a known error.

No, again, I'm reading what you wrote, I understand this isn't necessarily what you wanted to write, but you did write it.

Concerning what you did actually write, are atheists intelligent? Not necessarily. I've discussed that point.

Maybe a little more explanation on what you do actually want to say would be in order.

It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented.

I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect.

It doesn't take intellect to deny, or to accept. So what's the point?

But I didn't write, "I haven't met an atheist that has impressed." I wrote, "I haven't met an atheist HERE that has impressed." And you are proving my point by trying to claim that wasn't what I meant. I meant exactly what I wrote. I even explained how it would be illogical if I had written what you claim I intended to write.

Again you are misstating what I wrote. I wrote, "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented." The meaning of this statement is self evident.

It is your argument that it does not require any intellect to accept what you have been told. I answered this by telling you, that isn't what I have done. My beliefs are based upon reason, observations and experience.

If you want to know what they are then I suggest you go to the topic in the Bull Ring and read about them. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

Now let me address this statement.

What I wrote was this, "I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So can you explain to me how you made the leap from what I wrote to I have never met an atheist who has impressed me?

Let's put it in context of what you said.

You said "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented. "

No, it doesn't.

Then you said:

"I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So, you've made a general statement about life, debating, talking politics. Then you make a slightly more specific argument by inserting the word "here".

The first sentence being so general, you can only make the assumption that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you with their intellect.

Otherwise you would have had to have added more information.

I mean, who comes on here and says "I've never met an atheist on here who's impressed me with their intellect" when they would also add "but I've met plenty down at the bar who have"?

The way you've written what you wrote IMPLIES that you've never met one here or anyone else, therefore you general statement above is correct. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

Are you trying to rationalize your error? I meant exactly what I said. I have not met an atheist HERE who has impressed me. You put words in my mouth I did not speak and then proceeded to attack me for the words you put there. We call this a strawman argument of your own making. And now you are rationalizing that you did nothing wrong. Thus proving that when man does wrong, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not do wrong. You have let the cat out of the bag that you follow a moral law that you did not make and can't seem to get rid of.

I don't see an error here. Communication is fraught with misunderstandings. You say something that you mean, but it comes across differently to other people.

I'm telling you what you wrote sounds like. You can try and defend yourself, you can explain you meant something else, that's fine. But I've re-read what you wrote and I still think it means what I thought it meant in the first place.

As for your psychological evaluation on me, well.... you're wrong.

I wrote exactly what meant. It would have been illogical to say there is no atheist who is not impressive.

I did not make a psychological evaluation of you. You believe in fairness (i.e. The Law of Right and Wrong). You did not make this law and you cannot get rid of it. You are no different than anyone else.

Well if you meant exactly what you said, then I have to say that the insides of your brain must be whirling around like crazy. And no, it's not an insult, it's that I don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Also I'm not so sure I believe in anything. Believing isn't really my thing.

I understand concepts of right and wrong, I can argue concepts of right and wrong, I might differ in what I think is right and wrong from what you think it might be.

I also understand that it's a human concept that people have taken aboard, but also that in life it doesn't seem to mean much.

Yes, it can be a basis for a better life for more people. But then again it might lead to a worse life for more people.

I don't believe it, I look and see and then understand. What do I know, not what do I believe.

More than 90% of what you know you have accepted on authority of others. Do you agree or disagree?

And given that the proposition of science is that at any time new evidence is presented what they know can change. So how is it possible for you to know anything at all?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's put it in context of what you said.

You said "It does not require any intellect to deny everything that is presented. "

No, it doesn't.

Then you said:

"I have yet to meet an atheist here who has impressed me with his intellect."

So, you've made a general statement about life, debating, talking politics. Then you make a slightly more specific argument by inserting the word "here".

The first sentence being so general, you can only make the assumption that you've never met an atheist who has impressed you with their intellect.

Otherwise you would have had to have added more information.

I mean, who comes on here and says "I've never met an atheist on here who's impressed me with their intellect" when they would also add "but I've met plenty down at the bar who have"?

The way you've written what you wrote IMPLIES that you've never met one here or anyone else, therefore you general statement above is correct. Otherwise why would you make that statement?

Are you trying to rationalize your error? I meant exactly what I said. I have not met an atheist HERE who has impressed me. You put words in my mouth I did not speak and then proceeded to attack me for the words you put there. We call this a strawman argument of your own making. And now you are rationalizing that you did nothing wrong. Thus proving that when man does wrong, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not do wrong. You have let the cat out of the bag that you follow a moral law that you did not make and can't seem to get rid of.

I don't see an error here. Communication is fraught with misunderstandings. You say something that you mean, but it comes across differently to other people.

I'm telling you what you wrote sounds like. You can try and defend yourself, you can explain you meant something else, that's fine. But I've re-read what you wrote and I still think it means what I thought it meant in the first place.

As for your psychological evaluation on me, well.... you're wrong.

I wrote exactly what meant. It would have been illogical to say there is no atheist who is not impressive.

I did not make a psychological evaluation of you. You believe in fairness (i.e. The Law of Right and Wrong). You did not make this law and you cannot get rid of it. You are no different than anyone else.

Well if you meant exactly what you said, then I have to say that the insides of your brain must be whirling around like crazy. And no, it's not an insult, it's that I don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Also I'm not so sure I believe in anything. Believing isn't really my thing.

I understand concepts of right and wrong, I can argue concepts of right and wrong, I might differ in what I think is right and wrong from what you think it might be.

I also understand that it's a human concept that people have taken aboard, but also that in life it doesn't seem to mean much.

Yes, it can be a basis for a better life for more people. But then again it might lead to a worse life for more people.

I don't believe it, I look and see and then understand. What do I know, not what do I believe.

More than 90% of what you know you have accepted on authority of others. Do you agree or disagree?

And given that the proposition of science is that at any time new evidence is presented what they know can change. So how is it possible for you to know anything at all?

You don't necessarily.

What you can do it to make your own research and your own argument. The more you research, the more chance you have of being right.

 

[ding]

Are you trying to rationalize your error? I meant exactly what I said. I have not met an atheist HERE who has impressed me. You put words in my mouth I did not speak and then proceeded to attack me for the words you put there. We call this a strawman argument of your own making. And now you are rationalizing that you did nothing wrong. Thus proving that when man does wrong, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not do wrong. You have let the cat out of the bag that you follow a moral law that you did not make and can't seem to get rid of.

I don't see an error here. Communication is fraught with misunderstandings. You say something that you mean, but it comes across differently to other people.

I'm telling you what you wrote sounds like. You can try and defend yourself, you can explain you meant something else, that's fine. But I've re-read what you wrote and I still think it means what I thought it meant in the first place.

As for your psychological evaluation on me, well.... you're wrong.

I wrote exactly what meant. It would have been illogical to say there is no atheist who is not impressive.

I did not make a psychological evaluation of you. You believe in fairness (i.e. The Law of Right and Wrong). You did not make this law and you cannot get rid of it. You are no different than anyone else.

Well if you meant exactly what you said, then I have to say that the insides of your brain must be whirling around like crazy. And no, it's not an insult, it's that I don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Also I'm not so sure I believe in anything. Believing isn't really my thing.

I understand concepts of right and wrong, I can argue concepts of right and wrong, I might differ in what I think is right and wrong from what you think it might be.

I also understand that it's a human concept that people have taken aboard, but also that in life it doesn't seem to mean much.

Yes, it can be a basis for a better life for more people. But then again it might lead to a worse life for more people.

I don't believe it, I look and see and then understand. What do I know, not what do I believe.

More than 90% of what you know you have accepted on authority of others. Do you agree or disagree?

And given that the proposition of science is that at any time new evidence is presented what they know can change. So how is it possible for you to know anything at all?

You don't necessarily.

What you can do it to make your own research and your own argument. The more you research, the more chance you have of being right.

No. You don't. I don't have that problem. Practically speaking science is the study of nature to better understand nature and make predictions of nature.

I accept knowledge on the authority of others but not blindly. I accept it when it makes sense and is confirmed through observation. In fact, I have laid it all out in the thread I created in the Bull Ring.

Have you had a chance to review that yet? Can you tell me what you agree and disagree with?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Population of the World's Non-Religious Is on the Decline

Despite the apparent rise in people with no religion, the overall percentage of non-believers is expected to decline as a share of the world's population, according to a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

By 2050, the number of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or who say they have no particular religion will grow by 100 million, for a total of 1.2 billion people. But the percentage of believers will vastly outpace that growth, expanding by more than 2 billion over the same span of time. As a result, the percentage of non-believers, while growing in real terms, will decrease from 16 to 13 percent of the world's population by 2050.

It's a known fact that the birth rate is higher among less educated and less successful people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I accept it when it makes sense and is confirmed through observation

For instance:
- global warming
- evolution
- gmo safety
- fluoridated water safety
- vaccine safety

I commend your attitude, here. The world needs more of this.

 

[ding]

I accept it when it makes sense and is confirmed through observation

For instance:
- global warming
- evolution
- gmo safety
- fluoridated water safety
- vaccine safety

I commend your attitude, here. The world needs more of this.

Thank you.

Global warming has been occurring for the past 22,000 years and since we are still well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles it will continue to do so.

Evolution is when anything moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state and encompasses everything which has happened since the creation of space and time ~14 billion years ago and includes the evolution of consciousness which is the most advanced thing that has evolved from energy and matter.

The unintended consequences from GMO, fluoridated water and vaccines are not fully understood as of yet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ha...so, you lied. I knew it. That was too easy.

What you said about the climate has exactly nothing to do with global warming.in fact, the scientists who taught you all of that are the ones sounding the alarm about global warming. So you sound like a moron.

Evolution explains the diversity of species. You deny it only because it does not align with your freakish religious fetishes , themselves based on the delusions of ignorant, bronze age humans.

The consequences of GMOs actually are very well understood, when it comes to human health.

Ha, now how do you think I knew you were on the wrong side of history and of all the evidence ON ALL of those topics? You should feel embarrassed right now.

 

[ding]

Ha...so, you lied. I knew it. That was too easy.

What you said about the climate has exactly nothing to do with global warming.in fact, the scientists who taught you all of that are the ones sounding the alarm about global warming. So you sound like a moron.

Evolution explains the diversity of species. You deny it only because it does not align with your freakish religious fetishes , themselves based on the delusions of ignorant, bronze age humans.

The consequences of GMOs actually are very well understood, when it comes to human health.

Ha, now how do you think I knew you were on the wrong side of history and of all the evidence ON ALL of those topics? You should feel embarrassed right now.

Don't be silly. The planet has been warming for 22,000 years. Look it up.

Evolution applies to everything since the creation of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of thought. Stop being so narrow minded.

What are these well known consequences of GMO?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't be silly. The planet has been warming for 22,000 years. Look it up.

And the same scientists who taught you that are raising the alarm on global warming. But I'm sure an uneducated guy with no experience in any of their fields has outsmarted them all! And buy just reading back one of their own discoveries to them, in childlike language! You're going to be famous!

Evolution applies to everything since the creation of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of thought. Stop being so narrow minded.

I didn't say otherwise,

. I'm over here.. you are talking to your imaginary friend... but, the better word is "selection". That is the word you should use , for clarity.

What are these well known consequences of GMO?

You are kind of tripping over the English language again. What matters is the lack of consequences, as far as the costs to human health. And -- again, for clarity, since you seem to have a very tenuous grasp on this material --GMOs are basically modified with a strand of code that codes for a single protein. Some, a few strands. You know... we actually can test the safety of proteins, right?

 

[ding]

And the same scientists who taught you that are raising the alarm on global warming. But I'm sure an uneducated guy with no experience in any of their fields has outsmarted them all! And buy just reading back one of their own discoveries to them, in childlike language! You're going to be famous!

Show me a time in earth's history that CO2 drove climate change. You can't because it has never happened. CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it.

 

[ding]

I didn't say otherwise,

. I'm over here.. you are talking to your imaginary friend... but, the better word is "selection". That is the word you should use , for clarity.

No. The better word for what you were trying to describe is natural selection as it applies to biological evolution which includes evolution of thought. Now tell me what the two main components of natural selection are and then you might begin to understand how and why consciousness is evolving.

But if we are talking about the evolution of space and time since creation until now, evolution is the correct way to describe it.

 

[ding]

You are kind of tripping over the English language again. What matters is the lack of consequences, as far as the costs to human health. And -- again, for clarity, since you seem to have a very tenuous grasp on this material --GMOs are basically modified with a strand of code that codes for a single protein. Some, a few strands. You know... we actually can test the safety of proteins, right?

It seems that you are the one tripping over the English language as you were the one who said the consequences are well known instead of saying the lack of consequences are well known. Surely you don't believe the consequences are limited to health, right? Can you tell me what the potential consequence of having only seeds that are incapable of reproducing might be?