Why I Don't Need God | The Hitchens Challenge

[waltky]

Guess it depends on how old ya are, Granny says dis pretty well sums it up for most people...

Belief in God found in decline
April 18,`12 (UPI) -- Belief in God is declining gradually worldwide, with faith highest among older people, a report released by the University of Chicago Wednesday found.

The report, "Belief About God Across Time and Countries," found 13 percent of people living in the former East Germany expressed belief in God, while at the high end 94 percent of Filipinos say they have always been believers. The report said researchers found belief in God is higher among older people regardless of where they live. "Belief in God has decreased in most countries, but the declines are quite modest especially when calculated on a per annum basis," said Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago.

The data came from 30 countries in which surveys about belief in God have been taken at least twice since 1991. The study found atheism is strongest in northwest European countries and the former Soviet states, with the exception of Poland. Belief was found to be increasing in Russia, Slovenia and Israel. On average, 43 percent of those 68 and older are certain God exists, compared with 23 percent of those 27 and younger, the report said.

"Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older," Smith said. "This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality."

In the United States, 81 percent of those surveyed said they have always believed in God. The report said 54 percent of Americans younger than 28 said they were certain of God's existence, compared with 66 percent of the people 68 and older.

Read more: Belief in God found in decline - UPI.com

See also:

Belief In God Grows As Mortality Nears
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 - Belief in God is highest among older people and increases with age, perhaps due to the growing realization that death is coming closer, University of Chicago researchers said on Wednesday.

Summarizing data from surveys performed in 1991, 1998 and 2008 in 30 countries from Chile to Japan, the university's National Opinion Research Center found that, on average, 43 percent of those aged 68 and older were certain that God exists. By comparison, an average of 23 percent of people aged 27 and younger were firm believers in God, according to the report, which gathered data from the International Social Survey Program, a consortium of the world's leading opinion survey organizations. "Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older. This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality," researcher Tom Smith said in a statement.

Over the past two decades, belief in God has decreased in most countries, but the declines were modest, Smith said. Israel, Slovenia and Russia were three exceptions where belief in God had grown. For instance in Russia, non-believers who became believers outnumbered by 16 percent those who had lost their belief in God. Belief was highest in strongly Catholic countries such as the Philippines, at 94 percent, and lowest in Western Europe, with only 13 percent of former East Germans believers. In the United States, 81 percent of people surveyed said they had always believed in God, and 68 percent support the concept that God is concerned with people in a personal way.

People were asked about their range of beliefs, from atheism to strong belief in God; their changing beliefs over their lifetimes; and their attitudes toward the notion that God is concerned with individuals. The countries surveyed were Australia, Austria, Chile, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, The Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

Source

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why I Don't Need God | The Hitchens Challenge

The vulgar assumption that without god mankind would have no morality: Without god, humans are capable of doing anything. Without god there is no moral restraint on human beings.

Christopher Hitchens, you know who he is/was. Christopher Hitchens challenged people to name two things:

1) Name a moral action undertaken by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken by a non-believer, or name a moral statement made by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken or made by a non-believer.

2) Name something wicked that only a believer would be likely to do, or something wicked that only a believer would be likely to say.

--- --- ---

[youtube]XqFwree7Kak[/youtube]

name something wicked said or done, that can only be attributable to someones faith.

--- --- ---

here is a fraud pretending to answer the challenge:

Taking the Hitchens challenge Tom Flannery

Gee, I wonder why no one ever responded to this.

Oh, wait, they did.

Answering Hitchens on moral superiority | The God Blog | Jewish Journal

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've asked this question before but it's worth repeating.

Who is the the moral man; is it the man who believes in god and does good works out of fear of a punishment or to attain some reward in the afterlife or is it the man who does not believe in god yet does good works for their own sake not motivated by fear of punishment or reward in heaven?

What makes you think fear motivates believers? Or even hope of reward? Why should I believe that the man who doesn't believe isn't afraid of being punished, or seeking reward?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I've asked this question before but it's worth repeating.

Who is the the moral man; is it the man who believes in god and does good works out of fear of a punishment or to attain some reward in the afterlife or is it the man who does not believe in god yet does good works for their own sake not motivated by fear of punishment or reward in heaven?

What makes you think fear motivates believers? Or even hope of reward? Why should I believe that the man who doesn't believe isn't afraid of being punished, or seeking reward?

Whether we like to admit it or not, there's always at least some selfish reason for helping people or doing charitable acts.

I do some charitable acts, not enough, and the fact that people are happier and/or healthier when you've done a charitable act is a big part of it but also the fact that I feel better as a person and it makes me happier doing these things. In short, part of the reason to do something unselfish, is selfish lol.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've asked this question before but it's worth repeating.

Who is the the moral man; is it the man who believes in god and does good works out of fear of a punishment or to attain some reward in the afterlife or is it the man who does not believe in god yet does good works for their own sake not motivated by fear of punishment or reward in heaven?

What makes you think fear motivates believers? Or even hope of reward? Why should I believe that the man who doesn't believe isn't afraid of being punished, or seeking reward?

Whether we like to admit it or not, there's always at least some selfish reason for helping people or doing charitable acts.

I do some charitable acts, not enough, and the fact that people are happier and/or healthier when you've done a charitable act is a big part of it but also the fact that I feel better as a person and it makes me happier doing these things. In short, part of the reason to do something unselfish, is selfish lol.

i never denied that. In fact, that was my point, if you are assuming believers are only doing the right thing because they are selfish, you have to assume that non believers are doing them for the same motives, even if they might seem different superficially. If, on the other hands, you think non believers are being altruistic, then there is no reason to assume believers are not. The flaw here is in Skull's argument, not the actual motives of the believers.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What makes you think fear motivates believers? Or even hope of reward? Why should I believe that the man who doesn't believe isn't afraid of being punished, or seeking reward?

Whether we like to admit it or not, there's always at least some selfish reason for helping people or doing charitable acts.

I do some charitable acts, not enough, and the fact that people are happier and/or healthier when you've done a charitable act is a big part of it but also the fact that I feel better as a person and it makes me happier doing these things. In short, part of the reason to do something unselfish, is selfish lol.

i never denied that. In fact, that was my point, if you are assuming believers are only doing the right thing because they are selfish, you have to assume that non believers are doing them for the same motives, even if they might seem different superficially. If, on the other hands, you thing non believers are being altruistic, then there is no reason to assume believers are not. The flaw here is in Skull's argument, not the actual motives of the believers.

Yes I agree with you.

 

[Wolverine1984]

Whether we like to admit it or not, there's always at least some selfish reason for helping people or doing charitable acts.

I do some charitable acts, not enough, and the fact that people are happier and/or healthier when you've done a charitable act is a big part of it but also the fact that I feel better as a person and it makes me happier doing these things. In short, part of the reason to do something unselfish, is selfish lol.

i never denied that. In fact, that was my point, if you are assuming believers are only doing the right thing because they are selfish, you have to assume that non believers are doing them for the same motives, even if they might seem different superficially. If, on the other hands, you thing non believers are being altruistic, then there is no reason to assume believers are not. The flaw here is in Skull's argument, not the actual motives of the believers.

Yes I agree with you.

While it's true that people have selfish reasons for doing good deeds. Not all of the selfish reasons are equal.


For example:


On one hand, person A might do a good deed in order to feel good about himself. On the other hand however person B might do a good deed for another person on the eve they get paid.


Both people A and B committed good deeds out of selfish reasons. However we all can agree that doing good because it just feels good is much more virtuous reason than the other one.


If you tell a person, that if he won't be 'good' then after he dies he will burn in hell for all eternity in pain and suffering. And if this person actually believes in it, then that would be a very strong motivator, and the very strong selfish reason for being good and much much less virtuous than doing good just because it feels good inside.

 

[amrchaos]

Why I Don't Need God | The Hitchens Challenge

The vulgar assumption that without god mankind would have no morality: Without god, humans are capable of doing anything. Without god there is no moral restraint on human beings.

Christopher Hitchens, you know who he is/was. Christopher Hitchens challenged people to name two things:

1) Name a moral action undertaken by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken by a non-believer, or name a moral statement made by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken or made by a non-believer.

2) Name something wicked that only a believer would be likely to do, or something wicked that only a believer would be likely to say.

--- --- ---

[youtube]XqFwree7Kak[/youtube]

name something wicked said or done, that can only be attributable to someones faith.

--- --- ---

here is a fraud pretending to answer the challenge:

Taking the Hitchens challenge Tom Flannery

I think there is an underlying point in this challenge that many are missing.

How can you tell if someone is moral. By their actions? By their words? By their refusal to perform certain actions or say certain statements?

This challenge is meant to force people, both believers, to question who exactly is moral. How can you tell? Is a declaration of faith enough, or is it possible some other understanding is needed that is neither available nor taught by religious organizations.

The question of "Who is moral" is an important question for humans in society. If we are mislead by the statements or actions of someone, it is possible to follow a fool to own destruction.

"How do you know they are moral" is, in my opinion, the question that underline the challenge.

 

[amrchaos]

By the way--there seems to be a problem with the challenge----

That depends on how one defines morality. Some people think that martyrdoom is a moral act....What unbeliever with sense will do that?

 

[Dr.Drock]

By the way--there seems to be a problem with the challenge----

That depends on how one defines morality. Some people think that martyrdoom is a moral act....What unbeliever with sense will do that?

Depends what kind, I'd like to think I'd die to save my family and friends. But yes the martyrdom to die for how a book is read or interpretted will always be crazy to us heathens.

 

[KevinWestern]

By the way--there seems to be a problem with the challenge----

That depends on how one defines morality. Some people think that martyrdoom is a moral act....What unbeliever with sense will do that?

Depends what kind, I'd like to think I'd die to save my family and friends. But yes the martyrdom to die for how a book is read or interpretted will always be crazy to us heathens.

I think though, what Amrchaos brings up is a pretty legitimate point, and why I think the Hitchen's challenge is flawed.

As a background, I am a non-believer and non-religious, but if God were to exist in the way that the Christians describe him (something I can neither prove nor disprove), it would be considered “moral” to praise him and to encourage other people to do the same. It would be “moral” because essentially it would be an action that would save people from spending an eternity in hell – the “moral” thing to do.

Therefore, in the scenario that God exists, religion is absolutely necessary because without it people would have no reason to perform the moral action of praising God, ect.

 

[saveliberty]

Why I Don't Need God | The Hitchens Challenge

The vulgar assumption that without god mankind would have no morality: Without god, humans are capable of doing anything. Without god there is no moral restraint on human beings.

Christopher Hitchens, you know who he is/was. Christopher Hitchens challenged people to name two things:

1) Name a moral action undertaken by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken by a non-believer, or name a moral statement made by a believer, that you believe cannot be undertaken or made by a non-believer.

2) Name something wicked that only a believer would be likely to do, or something wicked that only a believer would be likely to say.

--- --- ---

[youtube]XqFwree7Kak[/youtube]

name something wicked said or done, that can only be attributable to someones faith.

--- --- ---

here is a fraud pretending to answer the challenge:

Taking the Hitchens challenge Tom Flannery

Yep, its flawed because ALL sin. There is no specific sin that a believer can commit that a nonbeliever can't also commit. The difference comes in asking for forgiveness not only from the person you sinned against, but also from God who you have sinned against as well. Next