More of Younger Generation consider themselves religiously unaffiliated

• HitsRus

  

  evolution neither proves nor disproves anything.
• I Wear Pants

  iclfan2 wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote:
  If you read my other post, you can never with 100% certainty say there isn't a god, but that doesn't mean the odds are 50/50, science has proven that at least the Christian god is more unlikely than likely.

  What has science proven? Can't prove the big bang, can't prove evolution, etc. I never got the argument that believing in God is so out there, but believing that dust, exploded, and formed a cell, which transformed into millions of species of animals through evolution is so scientifically logical.

  It doesn't mean there isn't a god or anything but evolution is a verifiable fact.
• iclfan2

  

  bigmanbt wrote:
  From the bolded, I can tell the level of intelligence of the person with whom I am speaking. Evolution by natural selection is most certainly a fact.

  They can't prove humans came from monkeys. Better?
• bigmanbt

  Humans didn't come from monkeys, we had a common ancestor. Big difference.
  
  I agree that evolution doesn't equal no god. Though I think the evidence isn't in favor of intelligent design, it doesn't mean it's not possible.
• HitsRus

  

  what? you don't think that the process of evolution is ingenious?
• bigmanbt

  HitsRus wrote: what? you don't think that the process of evolution is ingenious?

  Not really sure if you are talking to me, but I think it is, yes. Like Dawkins' latest book (which isn't religious, strictly evolution), I think the evolution of life is The Greatest Show on Earth.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  HitsRus wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.
  
  Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/
  
  Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

  Pew research also pegs the # of scientists believing in a god at 33%...a number that has held constant over the past century. Science by its very nature deals only with things that can be empirically verifiable by our own limited senses. What is so un-encouraging is that so many are incapable of transcending that limitation.
  
  Apparently too many people have read been swayed by Dawkins who is not able to think outside of his box.
  http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j11/goswami.asp?page=2

  
  Why must it be that they are unable tio "think outside the box" as if that's some limitation. Perhaps they've just come to the realization that the world is beautiful and has much to offer without it having to be seen through some superstitious lens.
  
  Like it or not there's no denying that Religion inhibits man in ways that seem unnatural. Why is it not okay to embrace the animal in man if that's what you believe in.
  
  The evolution of the natural world and man is a beautiful thing to many people. It doesn't mean they can't think outside the box. It just means they're comfortable with accepting what they've found to be the nature of life on earth and can embrace that.....
  
  Not everyone believes that meaning has to come from some spirit in the sky. Many people can find meaning in the world by what they can touch, measure, and see.
  
  For some it's comforting to know there is nothing but a final, everlasting peace when you die and not some battle for your soul between the forces of good and evil.
• dwccrew

  

  Count me as one that fits into that category listed by the OP.
  
  I am not a fan of organized religion because first off, they push their agenda and make god fit their views. Their specific book (any major religion) was written by a man who spoke to god. Whether that man was John, Matthew, Luke, Mohammed, Moses, etc. that particular religion thinks they are right and everyone else is not.
  
  Secondly, organized religion has caused more wars and murders than anything else in history.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  I always find amusing the Christians who accuse naturalists of being unable to think outside the box. Microevolution has been exhibited via natural selection yet they refuse to look outside the box to the next logical step, that is this process happens on a larger scale too.
  
  It just requires a very small amount of faith, something at which Christians are so good.
  
  Christians as a whole fight this idea tooth and nail. They don't want our kids learning about it in school, why??? Because they're afraid the kids may learn what really goes on. I don't believe that evolution necessarily refutes the existence of a god. Fighting science just makes you look vulnerable and weak. This one scientific finding can send your whole ideology upside down or what???
  
  Didn't Christianity fail at this fight against science enough times to know that this isn't the way to go about things??? They've fought science time after time and each time science prevails. I'm glad the Pope JP II had enough insight to realize this by issuing a statement of evolution's validity. For some reason his faithful servants won't even believe HIM on this issue. Is it really that threatening an idea????
  
  There is only one science and the world accepts. There are however three major Monotheistic World Religions. I could see if science varied tremendously on every continent like religion does. The sooner you accept the facts that even great rligious minds have found to be true, the better off you'll be. If there is a God he wants you to understand and accept the world he created....
• HitsRus

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote:
  
  "Why must it be that they are unable tio "think outside the box" as if that's some limitation. Perhaps they've just come to the realization that the world is beautiful and has much to offer without it having to be seen through some superstitious lens.
  
  Like it or not there's no denying that Religion inhibits man in ways that seem unnatural. Why is it not okay to embrace the animal in man if that's what you believe in."
  
  
  
  If you read all my comments, you'll find that I accuse both atheists AND some religious people of being "unable to think outside the box"....atheiests for not being able to accept spirituality and religious for refusing to accept science if it doesn't fit their narrow definition of 'God'.
  
  It is quite possible to be both religious and scientific. The friction that arises between the two are due to our inability as finite beings to conceptualize the infinite. We visualize him as a 'being' making decisions and micro managing his universe as a man might build and play with a toy....a 'spirit in the sky'.
  When you throw that concept out, and quit trying to pin human/animal characteristics to "Him", it becomes easy to accept both spirituality AND science.
  
  If you can visualize god not as a bordered entity but diffuse....as everywhere, permeating everything, at all times and forever. An enormous purpose of will and direction that surrounds us, envelopes us....and everything in the universe. If you can do that then you will see how the religions of the world tie in....the concept of 'oneness with that purpose' that in some form or other(heaven in the Christian tradition).
  
  
  Religion does not define God....it is a way for our spiritual nature to find him.
• bigmanbt

  Strapping Young Lad wrote:

  HitsRus wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.
  
  Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/
  
  Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

  Pew research also pegs the # of scientists believing in a god at 33%...a number that has held constant over the past century. Science by its very nature deals only with things that can be empirically verifiable by our own limited senses. What is so un-encouraging is that so many are incapable of transcending that limitation.
  
  Apparently too many people have read been swayed by Dawkins who is not able to think outside of his box.
  http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j11/goswami.asp?page=2

  
  Why must it be that they are unable tio "think outside the box" as if that's some limitation. Perhaps they've just come to the realization that the world is beautiful and has much to offer without it having to be seen through some superstitious lens.
  
  Like it or not there's no denying that Religion inhibits man in ways that seem unnatural. Why is it not okay to embrace the animal in man if that's what you believe in.
  
  The evolution of the natural world and man is a beautiful thing to many people. It doesn't mean they can't think outside the box. It just means they're comfortable with accepting what they've found to be the nature of life on earth and can embrace that.....
  
  Not everyone believes that meaning has to come from some spirit in the sky. Many people can find meaning in the world by what they can touch, measure, and see.
  
  For some it's comforting to know there is nothing but a final, everlasting peace when you die and not some battle for your soul between the forces of good and evil.

  I can't emphasize how on in this point you are. Many think that not believing in an afterlife is a dreary thing and is depressing. I on the other hand see it as an awakening. I get my enjoyment out of every day activities and see more beauty in the world, through art, music or nature. I live for the day much more, cause our time here is very limited in the grand scheme of things.
• bigmanbt

  HitsRus wrote:
  
  If you can visualize god not as a bordered entity but diffuse....as everywhere, permeating everything, at all times and forever. An enormous purpose of will and direction that surrounds us, envelopes us....and everything in the universe.
  

  In order to do that, I would have to refute science and those are principles I won't go against. Everything in this universe obeys the laws of science, it's hard to imagine one thing not abiding by them. Plus that borderless "thing" would be infinitely complex, which just doesn't jive again with science. I guess it's just a difference of opinions.
• HitsRus

  

  Refute? Science is the manifestation.
• tk421

  

  That's convenient. I love how religion always finds a way to change with the scientific times to somehow still imply that there is a creator. God is all around us working through science, really convenient. We could literally some day find advanced alien life who once paraded themselves on Earth as gods and still there would be people who said there were doing "God's" work. Anything to stay relevant.
• Swamp Fox

  I think it might not be too much of a stretch to say that many young people are just unaffiliated, period.
• krazie45

  

  tk421 wrote: That's convenient. I love how religion always finds a way to change with the scientific times to somehow still imply that there is a creator. God is all around us working through science, really convenient. We could literally some day find advanced alien life who once paraded themselves on Earth as gods and still there would be people who said there were doing "God's" work. Anything to stay relevant.

  So as a scientist, please prove to me how science cannot be the means? How a "God" cannot be the hand, and how things happen (or science) be the hammer? Making exaggerations to try and fit your argument is no way to win a logical debate.
• tk421

  

  I just think that's extremely convenient for religion. Throughout history people have struggled to understand how "God" created the universe, and now that we have some measure of technological means, any/all scientific discoveries we may make can all be credited to "God".
  
  I'm done talking about this on here, no one is going to change my mind and I'm not going to change anyone's. There is no point in arguing about the beginning of life, no one will ever know how it happened. I don't believe in a "God' and I'm never going to.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  krazie45 wrote:

  tk421 wrote: That's convenient. I love how religion always finds a way to change with the scientific times to somehow still imply that there is a creator. God is all around us working through science, really convenient. We could literally some day find advanced alien life who once paraded themselves on Earth as gods and still there would be people who said there were doing "God's" work. Anything to stay relevant.

  So as a scientist, please prove to me how science cannot be the means? How a "God" cannot be the hand, and how things happen (or science) be the hammer? Making exaggerations to try and fit your argument is no way to win a logical debate.

  No one has yet to explain to me why God has to be the hand.....Why do we have to put some anthropomorphic terms on the events of the universe??? It's natural to think that because we're human the "hand" has to be human-like also. Why can't we look beyond that instinct???
  
  If God were THE hand, why is the one true God so different depending on where you go in the world???
  
  Seems like something that people made up themselves and they didn't check with each other while doing so.....
• BoatShoes

  The point is none of these evidentiary arguments for the existence of God never really get you to where most theists really want you to be...that is, that there is an "omni-God". Even if someone accepts there this something beyond naturalism that serves as a prime mover not bound by natural law or perhaps even logic...there's still an awful lot of leaps to get from there to say, believing that this mover became personified as a human being on some immensely small insignificant rock and died in the name of saving persons from an eternal hell in some other supernatural place so long as said persons have the certain neurological brain states of "believing" that this person who died for them was named Jesus Christ and his story was written down in 4 gospels.
• krazie45

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote:

  krazie45 wrote:

  tk421 wrote: That's convenient. I love how religion always finds a way to change with the scientific times to somehow still imply that there is a creator. God is all around us working through science, really convenient. We could literally some day find advanced alien life who once paraded themselves on Earth as gods and still there would be people who said there were doing "God's" work. Anything to stay relevant.

  So as a scientist, please prove to me how science cannot be the means? How a "God" cannot be the hand, and how things happen (or science) be the hammer? Making exaggerations to try and fit your argument is no way to win a logical debate.

  No one has yet to explain to me why God has to be the hand.....Why do we have to put some anthropomorphic terms on the events of the universe??? It's natural to think that because we're human the "hand" has to be human-like also. Why can't we look beyond that instinct???
  
  If God were THE hand, why is the one true God so different depending on where you go in the world???
  
  Seems like something that people made up themselves and they didn't check with each other while doing so.....

  I'm not referring to God in the sense of the Christian, Jewish, Islam, or Hindu God. I'm talking about some sort of creator. I for one think that the Earth is FAR too complex to just happen by random chance. The odds are more astronomical than our minds can comprehend.
  
  My point is not whether one theory is right or the other. I'm saying that all are viable and are able to be discussed. Your ignorance does nothing but stalls discussion in the same way a 4 years old says "I'm right because!"
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  It just requires a little faith. But if you mistakenly put your faith in Allah instead of God, you're headed to hell for eternity.
  
  Sounds like a wonderful, loving, and just God, doesn't He????
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  krazie45 wrote:

  Strapping Young Lad wrote:

  krazie45 wrote:

  tk421 wrote: That's convenient. I love how religion always finds a way to change with the scientific times to somehow still imply that there is a creator. God is all around us working through science, really convenient. We could literally some day find advanced alien life who once paraded themselves on Earth as gods and still there would be people who said there were doing "God's" work. Anything to stay relevant.

  So as a scientist, please prove to me how science cannot be the means? How a "God" cannot be the hand, and how things happen (or science) be the hammer? Making exaggerations to try and fit your argument is no way to win a logical debate.

  No one has yet to explain to me why God has to be the hand.....Why do we have to put some anthropomorphic terms on the events of the universe??? It's natural to think that because we're human the "hand" has to be human-like also. Why can't we look beyond that instinct???
  
  If God were THE hand, why is the one true God so different depending on where you go in the world???
  
  Seems like something that people made up themselves and they didn't check with each other while doing so.....

  I'm not referring to God in the sense of the Christian, Jewish, Islam, or Hindu God. I'm talking about some sort of creator. I for one think that the Earth is FAR too complex to just happen by random chance. The odds are more astronomical than our minds can comprehend.
  
  My point is not whether one theory is right or the other. I'm saying that all are viable and are able to be discussed. Your ignorance does nothing but stalls discussion in the same way a 4 years old says "I'm right because!"

  But it's not like all this random shit that had to happen only had one shot to do it.
  
  The universe is soooo old that there have probably been millions or billions of "earth's" formed. Then this one happens and our life evolves, and here we are to ponder all this shit. It not like "okay we've got one chance to make a planet where life forms and that's all. If the stars don't line up this one time intelligent life is never gonna be"....
  
  Things aligned so we evolved. Life probably eveolved in other ways too somewhere out there or at some point in the vast history of the universe.
  
  We're not as special as it first seems.
• krazie45

  

  My point is that I don't know, and neither do you, so I'm not going to rule anything out. The difference between our views on this is that my approach is open-minded. There's really no way to know for sure and there probably never will be. Sure we discover things and make educated guesses based upon that information, but to say that it's ludicrous to even debate the topic is being closed-minded. Many different scientists have many different theories. One may be true, they all could be true in some way, or none of them may be true. That's why they are THEORIES and not LAWS.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  I remember it being explained once like this. You're looking for a suit that fits you perfectly. You can go into a tiny store and look through a limited selection, and you may find a suit that fits you just right.
  
  Or you could go into a huge store w/ a very great number of suits and you're much more likely to find that suit that's perfect for you.
  
  The universe is that large store. The universe is so big that life was bound to form somewhere and now here we are and of course we're going to wonder where in the hell we came from.....
• HitsRus

  

  tk421 wrote: That's convenient. I love how religion always finds a way to change with the scientific times to somehow still imply that there is a creator. God is all around us working through science, really convenient. We could literally some day find advanced alien life who once paraded themselves on Earth as gods and still there would be people who said there were doing "God's" work. Anything to stay relevant.

  of course it's convienient that science is a manifestation...how else would God work? Magic? The universe is incredibly precise.
  
  
  And of course, a religion must find a way to get the message out as science reveals more of our natural world. It's called context. One could not expect a primitive people barely capable of understanding fire to understand the same things as a civilization capable of space flight.
  
  
  Strapping Young Lad wrote:
  "If God were THE hand, why is the one true God so different depending on where you go in the world??? "
  
  The notion of a 'true god' does not deny God's existence or presence as it may be more of a man made competition. In reality, you can find common themes throughout all of the religions of the world. Almost all religions have a notion that happiness is union with the creator...a concept of seeking/working towards oneness.