I don't know if you understand but god already knows everything. It says it in your bible. If he knew people would sin, why create people in the first place? Why get angry when something that you know will happen, happens. Don't you understand the logic here? Is not like he suspected it, he already knew. The whole thing makes no sense.

You've seen those so-called G‑d games--like SimEarth or Civilization or The Gungan Frontier--a programmer's idea of what it's like to be G‑d. You look down at a world with detachment and make decisions of global scale with global impact, and watch the mess that ensues. You plop down animals and vegetation while ensuring the biosphere remains balanced and healthy. Sometimes it works out, sometimes there's disaster. Starvation. Catastrophe. Extinction. That's okay. When your mother calls for dinner, you shut down the machine and walk away.

As a developer of software games, I'm wondering how I would redo this in a way that offers a better sense of the G‑d we know in our prayers and our living.

What would it be like if, playing this game, I could see not just from my heavenly throne but from the eyes of any creature on the planet? I could choose a predator or a victim, even a worm, or how about a plant or a rock -- and know life as it goes on from within that being. I would experience the satisfaction of munching green leaves, the fear of an approaching predator, the throbbing heartbeat of an attacked animal. The desperate will to live. And then I would become one with the beast that eats me.

What if I could enter all those creatures at once, and be all of them, all at once? Some that know the world with sight, others that live only in a world of smell, still others who survive by detecting electrical impulses. From within a single world, I could experience a thousand different ones.

I could be a bee that sees a spectrum of color beyond what humans know. Or a worm that lives in a virtually two-dimensional world. Hot as a lizard basking in the sun, cold as a penguin in an Antarctic blizzard. Wet as a fish, dry as a desert moth. Swift as a falcon, sluggish as a sloth. Smart as an angel, silent as a rock. All at once. Boundless diversity of experience. Each the center of a whole world.

And at the same time as I am one with all of them, living within them and feeling how ultimately real all this is, I would remain transcendent and aloof. Infinitely above and intimately within, all at once.

Then there would be a story. And I, the player, would be the author. In a story, you can express your innermost thoughts, thoughts that are otherwise ineffable.

My story would be a very big story, a masterful drama full of little stories. And in the little stories, that's where I would really have fun, since I would give some of my favorite creatures the power to influence the outcome of those little stories. To be the hero or the villain--or just a coward. To take part or to stand by. It would all be their choice and they would each have to live with their decisions.

After all, their consciousness is my consciousness. Since I have free choice to author this whole big story, I could have free choice from within them as well, in these little stories. And that's part of the big story.

So there would be this story with protagonist and antagonist, and I would be within both, but at the same time I would be on the side of the protagonist and against the antagonist. I'm infinite and boundless, remember? So I can be found even in a creature who's against me and against my side. I can be within the hunter and the hunted all at once. And sympathize and feel the pain of both.

And then, in the big story, through a culmination of all the little stories and their little heroes, my side would win. All would recognize the Me that is within them, and even I would find Myself there. And be surprised. If you're G‑d, you can surprise even yourself.

Boy, He must be having some wild time.

Anyone looking for another reason not to leave life-and-death issues to the state need look no further than the conflict between the British government and the parents of 11-month-old Charlie Gard.

Governments, including the British courts and the European court of human rights have refused to allow Charlie’s parents to take him to the U.S. for what they believe is life-saving treatment. In what many will regard as a cynical decision, UK judge Nicholas Francis gave Charlie’s parents just two days to present new evidence as to why their son should receive experimental treatment. A final decision will be handed down in a hearing on Thursday.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital where Charlie is on a ventilator, his brain reportedly damaged from a rare genetic condition, argue that he should be removed from life support and allowed to die. President Trump has offered help. Pope Francis also supports the parent’s right to determine what is best for their child.

Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, believe an experimental treatment known as nucleoside therapy might work on their son. British doctors say it won’t improve the child’s “quality of life.” They want him to die. Apparently that’s OK with the state-run National Health Service (NHS), which is always looking for ways to cut costs.

Judges, bureaucrats and politicians should not be allowed to make such a decision, but the growing power of the state is increasingly assuming the power to determine who is fit to live and who should die.

The parents have raised enough money to take Charlie to America for treatment. Wouldn’t most parents do all they could for their child, especially one so young who is helpless and at the mercy of adults? I know I would for my grandson, who is also named Charlie.

Judges, bureaucrats and politicians should not be allowed to make such a decision, but the growing power of the state is increasingly assuming the power to determine who is fit to live and who should die — and to quote Scrooge from Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” “decrease the surplus population.” Who, or what, can stop them, assuming a majority want to?

When the state is allowed to assign value to a human life, the unwanted, the inconvenient, the sick, the elderly and the handicapped are all at risk. Seeing lives as less than valuable, or of no value, will bring us to the point where only the fit and healthy are allowed to live. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote in 1921, “The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” The Nazis took this thinking to its most inhumane level with horrific results.

At a Monday hearing, Judge Francis said “new and powerful” evidence submitted by the parents and their attorney could overturn previous rulings. That would be good, but the larger question is why does a court get to decide what health care is best for a child? That should be the parents’ privilege and responsibility.

It was University of Chicago professor of biology, Dr. Leon Kass, who issued this stern warning: “We have paid some high prices for the technological conquest of nature, but none so high as the intellectual and spiritual costs of seeing nature as mere material for our manipulation, exploitation and transformation. With the powers of biological engineering gathering, there will be splendid new opportunities for similar degradation of our view of man. ... If we come to see ourselves as meat, then meat we shall become.”

Charlie Gard is not “meat.” He and his parents should be allowed to come to America. As long as hope lives, so does Charlie.

In the bible it says clearly that god has failed. That's why the flood happened because he failed. A god cannot fail yet it says he failed, it shows again, the stupidity of people who wrote the book.

Question:

The following text from just before the flood seems to imply that G‑d did something wrong, was sorry for it, and surprised by its happening:

"And the L-rd repented that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart. And the L-rd said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air, for I repent that I have made them."

How could that be when He knows the end before the beginning?

Answer:

Here's what the ancient Midrash has to say on these verses:

A heretic asked R. Joshua ben Korchah: "Don't you Jews say that G‑d knows the future?"

Rabbi Joshua answered, "Yes."

"Why then," continued the heretic, "is it written that 'grieved Him in His heart'?"

Responded R. Joshua, "Was a son ever born to you?"

"Yes," said the heretic.

"What did you do?"

"I rejoiced."

"But didn't you know that one day he will die?"

Replied the man, "One rejoices when it is a time for rejoicing, and one mourns when it is a time for mourning."

Said R. Joshua, "So it is with G‑d."

Rashi, the classic commentator, cites this Midrash and adds a few words to explain further. He adds, "Although it was known to Him that they will sin and be destroyed, He nevertheless created them for the sake of the righteous who will descend from them."

Meaning that G‑d created humankind because He wanted righteous human beings. So when He created them, He rejoiced. He knew there would be wicked people, for there cannot be righteousness without wickedness, good without bad. But now was a time to rejoice. Later, when the wicked would arise, that would be the time to mourn.

If you wish to go a little deeper, ponder this: Is G‑d involved in His creation, or does He stand beyond it? On the one hand, to be the Creator of all that exists out of nothing, He must be entirely beyond all the creation contains. On the other hand, He must be here right now in every event that occurs.

So we say that He is both—in the language of Chassidut, He is within all things and yet encompasses them all at once. To be G‑d, He must, so to speak, be of two minds at once:

He must see things from beyond and from within at the same time.

This is what Rabbi Joshua was explaining to the heretic: On the one hand, G‑d knows all before it happens. He is beyond it all and nothing affects Him. At the same time, He involves Himself within every event of the story as it happens. He is there intimately, within the sorrow and within the joy, within the pain and within the beauty that comes out from that pain. Both modalities are true at once and in both together is He found.

I wrote something on this topic in an article called Playing G‑d, but let me know if this helps answer your question.

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

The bible has literally pages of god commanding to kill people, what do you mean to look at its entirety? If it's truly the book of a god, you would expect it to have no mistakes. Or that people won't be able to misinterpret it.
You see, all that matters to god is for me to accept that he exists, he doesn't care whether I am a good person or not, it just shows how stupid he is lol

One way in which to confront the challenges posed to religion by Richard Dawkins et al is via sheer metaphysics; another is to claim a future demographic victory in which the religious will outnumber the non-religious worldwide, as The Economist journalists, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge did recently in their riposte, God is Back. However, it is also worth looking in detail at the political impact of religion past and present. Is religion a force for good or evil in the world, a cause of political problems or part of the solution to the challenges and conflicts societies face? The authors of God’s Century (that is this one!) attempt to answer this question. All three are young, American, political scientists who refute any lingering notion that religion is a spent force, insisting rather that ‘over the past four decades religion’s influence on politics has reversed its decline and become more powerful on every continent and across every world religion’ (p. 3). They are keen to point out that ‘religious actors’ throughout the world now ‘enjoy a greater capacity for political influence than at any time in modern history’ (p. 40).

Duffy, Philpott and Shah provide a good overview of the history of religion–State relations with regard to all the major faith traditions: the renowned European 1648 Treaty of Westphalia; the Japanese Edo period from 1603 onwards, in which Buddhism developed as an instrument of state power; the relationship between Islam and political authority in post-1453 Ottoman Empire are all discussed. This is not a Eurocentric account. However, their main purpose is not to trace historical roots; ‘this is a book about global politics, written first and foremost for people interested in understanding the world’s present and future dynamics’ (p. 40). Nor are ‘global politics’ treated lightly as a single narrative. God’s Century is full of ‘case studies’ which examine the impact of religion in particular contemporary contexts and conflicts, such as in Afghanistan, India, Iran, Iraq and Turkey, offering insights often ignored in foreign policy analysis.

But behind their accounts is a thesis that the resurgence of religion is connected to its commitment to developing democracy and global communications: ‘pro democracy monks and mullahs, priests and patriarchs were everywhere – north and south, east and west, developed world and developing world… disproving the secular thesis in its latest, “neo atheist” version that militant religion and illiberal politics are conjoined twins’ (p. 95). Much good use is made of Jonathan Fox’s A World Survey of Religion and the State (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Based on the Freedom House Political Rights and Civil Liberties scores, the authors tabulate in detail the contributions of religions to the democratisation of individual countries, stressing that where religions have institutional independence their contribution is usually more positive: ‘religious communities are most likely to support democracy, peace and freedom for other faiths and least likely to take up the gun or form dictatorships, when governments allow them freedom to worship, practice and express their faith freely’ (p. 18). They also note that ‘at least 50% of the world’s population lived under political regimes that systematically restricted the right and capacity of religious organisations to influence society and politics at some point between 1917 and 1967’.

An excellent chapter on ‘Religious Civil Wars: Nasty, Brutish and Long’ focusing on Sudan, Chechnya, Sri Lanka and Tibet (noting that civil wars since 1950 have claimed over 16 million lives) leads into an analysis (again tabulated in detail) of the contribution of religions as ‘militants for peace and justice’. The role of the Catholic Church, for example, through organisations such as the Community of Sant’Egidio (especially in mediating in the conflict in Mozambique), is praised. We really underestimate, usually through political ignorance, the detailed mediating role of ‘religious actors’ in resolving national conflicts and introducing follow up ‘transitional justice’ (through instituting Truth Commissions, for example). As the authors put it, ‘Although almost every religious tradition has seen at least some prodemocratic activism, the fact is that religious actors from the Catholic tradition accounted for an overwhelming proportion of religious activism on behalf of democracy between 1972-2009’. The political facts spelt out here illustrate that positive contribution, one that is mentioned rarely even within the Church itself.

God’s Century closes with ten rules for the future, acknowledging that religious actors are here to stay and will not be confined to the private sphere; rather they will ‘enter public life and shape political outcomes’. They will have a larger and more pervasive role in this century (‘China by 2050 will be home to the world’s largest Muslim and the world’s largest Christian community’) and they will reinforce democratisation, peacemaking and reconciliation. Governments which ‘fail to respect the institutional independence of religious actors will encourage pathological forms of religious politics including religious based terrorism and religious related civil wars’. The key message is that governments need to appreciate the strategic value of religions in foreign policy and engage seriously with their beliefs and theologies. But in the end this political account of the religious contribution looks to the future on the basis of the American model of faith-State relations, which are under-examined.

God’s Century is not itself a work of ‘political theology’ but it does demonstrate that we who belong to religious traditions have too readily conceded that religions cannot make positive contributions to tackling the most seemingly intractable challenges and conflicts of our times. There is here plenty of real evidence of political hope.

Do people take this shit seriously?

Let's start simple:

Take an agrarian society surrounded by hostile nations. Go in there and forcefully abolish slavery. The result? War, bloodshed, hatred, prejudice, poverty and eventually, a return to slavery until the underlying conditions change. Which is pretty much what happened in the American South when the semi-industrialized North imposed their laws upon the agrarian South. And in Texas when Mexico attempted to abolish slavery among the Anglophones there.

Not a good idea. Better idea: Place humane restrictions upon the institution of indentured servitude. Yes, it's still ugly, but in the meantime, you'll teach people compassion and kindness. Educate. Make workshops... Eventually, things change and slavery becomes an anachronism for such a society.

Which is pretty much what happened to Jewish society. Note this: At a time when Romans had literally thousands of slaves per citizen, even the wealthiest Jews held very modest numbers of servants. And those servants, the Talmud tells us, were treated better by their masters than foreign kings would treat their own subjects.

Torah teaches us how to run a libertarian society--through education and participation. Elsewhere in the world, emperors and aristocracy knew only how to govern a mass of people through oppression.
...
So the "conservative-radical" approach of Torah is this: Work with the status quo to get beyond it. Torah is more about process than about content.
...
Climbing Deeper

Are you satisfied with this answer? I'm not. I'm convinced there's a deeper effect that Torah is looking for. Call it "the participatory effect." A.k.a. nurture.

The Participatory Effect tells us that if you want people to follow rules, you put guns to their heads. But if you want them to learn, grow, internalize those rules and be able to teach them to others, you're going to have to involve them in the process of forming those rules.

School teachers do this when they work with their class on the first day to design rules that everyone will see as reasonable and useful. Parents do this when they allow their child to makes mistakes so that s/he will learn from them. A skilled wife is doing this when she gets her husband to believe that he came up with the idea of re-tiling the kitchen floor.

In general, this strategy comes more naturally to women than to men. Men find it much easier to shove their opinions down other people's throats and, if need be, argue the other into the ground until he surrenders. All variations of the old gun-to-the-head technique. Women are designed to nurture, physically and emotionally, so they take naturally to the participatory technique. To quote Gluckel of Hameln, "She was a true woman of valor. She knew how to control her husband's heart."
...
Getting Real Change

If G‑d would simply and explicitly declare all the rules, precisely as He wants His world to look and what we need to do about it, the Torah would never become real to us. No matter how much we would do and how good we would be, we would remain aliens to the process.

So, too, with slavery (and there are many other examples): In the beginning, the world starts off as a place where oppressing others is a no-qualms, perfectly acceptable practice. It's not just the practice Torah needs to deal with, it's the attitude. So Torah involves us in arriving at that attitude. To the point that we will say, "Even though the Torah lets us, we don't do things that way."

Which means that we've really learnt something. And now, we can teach it to others. Because those things you're just told, those you cannot teach. You can only teach that which you have discovered on your own.
...
The greatest force in the emancipation of slavery in colonial times were the "Society of Friends," also known as the "Quakers."

A new study has countered some perceptions that Christianity around the world is on the decline and could be dying out, by pointing out that religious people are having more children than atheists.

The study, titled "The Future of Secularism: a Biologically Informed Theory Supplemented with Cross-Cultural Evidence" specifically tackled perceptions among social scientists that religious belief is on the decline.

Researchers from the U.S. and Malaysia studied over 4,000 students, asking them about their religious beliefs and how many siblings they had, and found that Malaysian atheists had 1.5 fewer siblings than the average, though in the U.S. the gap was narrower.

The experts found that non-religious children from the U.S. came on average from parents who had 3.04 children, compared with the 3.2 in the general population.

The findings, published in the Evolutionary Psychological Science international journal, correlated with other studies which found that Muslims are the most fertile and religious group. Christianity and almost all other religions had a positive association with parental fertility as well, however.

"While cross-sectional in nature, when our results are combined with evidence that both religiosity and fertility are substantially heritable traits, findings are consistent with view that earlier trends toward secularization (due to science education surrounding advancements in science) are currently being counter-balanced by genetic and reproductive forces," the study explained.

It also foresees a decline in secularism, due to the reliance on contraception contributing to lower birth rates, which it traced back to industrial developments.

"By the mid-19th century, scientific discoveries had moved to a point that human reproduction was sufficiently well understood that fertility rates began to be impacted, especially in the emerging industrial countries," it read.

The researchers predicted that "secularism is likely to undergo a decline throughout the remainder of the 21st century, including Europe and other industrial societies."

"It is ironical that effective birth control methods were developed primarily by secularists, and that these methods are serving to slowly diminish the proportional representation of secularists in forthcoming generations," they added.

The Independent reports that some might argue that having religious parents doesn't necessarily mean that their children will grow up with the same beliefs, but other studies have shown that religion is indeed heritable to an extent.

You could argue that with any other religious book or just philosophy in general. A lot of philosophers already presented arguments for the creation of the universe, life and many other problems. That doesn't mean anything. And badecker says that god allows all science to happen. The god from the bible? Or the one from islam? Or maybe is the one from the other thousands of religions, which one is it?

Metaphysics are your fundamental assumptions. These are chosen: they were chosen by you (although you probably weren't aware of choosing them, but just passively accepted them).

Fundamental assumptions are chosen - but they are not arbitrary; because the assumptions have consequences. You can choose whatever you want to believe - but sometimes you will not be able to make yourself live-by these chosen beliefs; and other times you will live by them (including thinking by them) such that they lead to nonsensical and therefore self-refuting outcomes.

The trouble is that in a world where people have stopped thinking- and when their assumptions lead to incoherent, nonsensical conclusions, instead of sorting-out their metaphysics - they just stop thinking (easier to do than ever before in human history - due to the ubiquity of mass media and social media).

Anyway - my point is that if you have certain (very common) assumptions, then you will either have a nihilistic, hope-less and despairing world view --- or else you will have to stop yourself thinking about anything serious.

There are innumerable commonly-held assumptions that lead to this: that Man has no free will, that the world is either random and unpredictable or else rigidly predetermined, that nothing exists except what has been described by 'science', that morality is a matter of opinion, that beauty is wholly in the eye of the beholder... oh, there are dozens of such.

Indeed, most of people's primary assumptions nowadays are of a type that lead to nonsensical or incoherent conclusions - so it is futile to complain about the low standard of rational public debate when rational debate is only possible on the basis that people are able and willing to examine and revise their assumptions when they lead to absurd outcomes.

Because perhaps the most absurd modern metaphysical assumption of all is that metaphysics is meaningless and all decisions should be made on the basis of 'evidence'!

Whereas (as quickly becomes apparent in any disagreement) unless there is agreement on metaphysical assumptions then the cannot even be agreement on what counts as evidence, leave aside the matter of evaluating the strength of evidence...

The thing we must recognize about metaphysics, is that the metaphysical framework is neither validated nor contradicted by experience. That modern metaphysical assumptions are not the consequence of knowledge, or science, or logic. That traditional or religious metaphysics have never been refuted nor disproved.

We can choose to change are metaphysics, and (by repetition and self-monitoring) work to make the new metaphysics a spontaneous habit.

Is metaphysics then all just a matter of arbitrary opinion?  Well, it can be  but it need not be.

1. We can examine our metaphysical assumptions to see whether they are internally consistent and coherent.

2. We can trace the provenance, i.e. the origin, of the metaphysics we currently hold-to and see whether we regard that source as good, reliable, trustworthy (for example, if the metaphysics comes from people whose motives or character we regard as bad, then there is a good reason not to accept their metaphysics).

3. We can explore and compare the consequences of different metaphysical systems and evaluate which we think is the most Good: that is, the most true, beautiful and virtuous.

In other words, we can approach metaphysics with the conviction that some systems are better than others, and deploy our deepest and most fundamental mode of evaluation to compare systems and choose that which is best; and choose to try and live by it.

Ok? It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a religion or not, science still works and you haven't shown a single example of the bible being applied to something that actually works.

There are certain philosophical presuppositions that must be assumed in order for science to be considered an effective, worthy endeavor:

✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.

The most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails.

The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.

The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.

To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:

• The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being
• This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard)
• Matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
• The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.

They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:

• Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
• Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
• Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which: Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
• Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of “poking into things” by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.

The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

Real Science noun Science that operates on the basis of a belief in the reality of truth: that truth is real.

The argument of this book in a single paragraph

Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.

The secularisation of Britain has been thrown into sharp focus by new research showing that for every person brought up in a non-religious household who becomes a churchgoer, 26 people raised as Christians now identify as non-believers.
...
It paints a picture of a Britain in which Christianity has seen a dramatic decline – although figures suggest a recent bottoming out in recent years. The avowedly non-religious – sometimes known as “nones” – now make up 48.6% of the British population. Anglicans account for 17.1%, Catholics 8.7%, other Christian denominations 17.2% and non-Christian religions 8.4%.

But, the “growth of no religion may have stalled”. After consistent decline, in the past few years the proportion of nones appears to have stabilised. “Younger people tend to be more non-religious, so you’d expect it to keep going – but it hasn’t. The steady growth of non-Christian religions is a contributing factor, but I wonder if everyone who is going to give up their Anglican affiliation has done so by now? We’ve seen a vast shedding of nominal Christianity, and perhaps it’s now down to its hardcore.”
...
Bullivant identifies a generational shift in terms of education and religious affiliation. Among older nones, a high proportion had degree-level education. But the nones’ above-average levels of higher education fade further down the age groups. Thus the non-religious have the lowest levels of degree-level education among 25- to 34-year-olds and 35- to 44-year-olds. (The proportion of graduates is highest among Catholics and the ​non-Christian religions, he notes.)
...
Although religious affiliation is declining in western Europe and north America, there is significant growth in other parts of the world. Islam is expected to become the world’s largest religion by 2075, and Christianity is booming in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and China.

...

It has NOTHING to do with the thread topic... I've already warned you several times to stop derailing this thread with your personal vendetta... I'm going to report your bullshit to the mods

...
You cherry pick "secular" countries... you literally left all the most secular ones off your list... Where is Sweden, Norway, Japan, Switzerland, etc, etc, etc?

...

Having more children doesn't mean shit if those children become Atheists, now does it?

If Christians are out-breeding Atheists as you claim, why is there a HUGE rise in Atheism lately?  Can you explain?

Your propaganda is so easily debunked a child could do it... hell, national geographic debunked your nonsense:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/

Time already tells,

we have reached high mark of secularization and witness tide turning back.

Kaufmann addressed all those points of National Geographic article and more  

"As Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a ‘fertility gap’ of 41 per cent. Given that about 80 per cent of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections."

Yes, from secular point of view you can argue, that non-believers can through apostacy of believers postpone their demographic demise by cannibalizing existing denominations. As has happened in eastern Europe during communism. But you wont solve fundamental problem of self replacement through fertility and you also lack any sort of fail safe (if we discount state terror) to stop returning individuals to their respective faiths.

I am that I am. I chose.

My return to God from nihilistic positions, that engulfed the West like a cancer took several years, Stats. And it has to some degree purely rational basis. I witnessed time and time again "scientists", who tried to understand desert by counting every single stone in it. It was not problem of the methodology, but of their choices, of their resignation on any non-materialistic argument. Without faith in what you do, all your work loses purpose besides feeding you. Degrading you in process from human being created in His image to something more akin to beast with large cranial capacity.

Faith forms culture, culture forms civilization. Civilization gives a Man purpose. When the faith dies, so does the culture and when culture is replaced civilization ends. Then men start to die. - Patrick Buchanan

Even atheist or rather agnostic greatly benefits from moral compass of religion and faith, as it provides for social stability, hope and drive. Giving entire culture what could be described as "soul". Marxists like Fromm and Freud understood this, as did scientists like Darwin and Newton.

I come from the most agnostic, godless place on planet, Stats. And I have witnessed how the place, without faith that formed its culture for the past millenia, slowly turned to Animals farm. Youngest being the hardest hit. Every generation in western Europe is now by full third (!) smaller than the previous one despite peace and welfare and health care. As I saw with my compatriots at foreign owned factories, women sell themselves to highest bidder, while men spend all their income on gambling and paying back high interest loans. Sounds almost like Bitcointalk, right? They dont do it for any purpose, but to feed themselves.

From industrial heart of Europe, into place full of aging, fearful corporate slaves, that wait for highest bidder. Fukuyama was indeed right, his "Last men" cannot be fought on battlefield by "barbarians". However, these "Last men" that I turned my back to also fail to do most most basic of things, that Darwin demands of victors in evolutionary race. Offspring. Because they have only interests, not beliefs. As did Greco-Romans before their demise.

Thats one of the points, why I personally chose to become "born again". I have grown up among secular liberals, saw their fashionable cults masquerading pointless materialism. And saw it for what it is. Nails to the coffin of our culture. I would hate the sight of my children as the "Last men".

If secular liberalism has any future, than why its adherents arent even able to replenish their own numbers? I already mentioned, that sir Darwin was anglican, yes? Well, atheists love to turn to him as a reference aswell. Will you? For a materialistic proof, friend.



Stats, you can look at the following as a list of developed, secular countries. Or as a graveyeard of their respective cultures and tribes. It is your choice. Guess, where is my homeland on the list? The very existence of these facts disprove that you can build anything that survives you on reason alone. It is against human nature. And therefore "science" aswell.

We've had this argument before... I presented the fact that atheists are less likely to be criminals than christians... you rejected the evidence in lieu of your preconceived notion that christians must be better people than atheists... because... well, no because... you didn't present an actual reason or evidence... just a claim that the Federal Bureau of Prisons must be wrong, and you are right... then proceed to unload 5+ more lies/propaganda for me to debunk... not gonna do it... wasting your/my time

We had this argument at least twice now... stop lying

I present evidence, you reject it and make false claims without backing anything up with a source, link, scientific study... it's just nonsense... I don't have time for your bullshit... I really don't... I'm done responding to your stupid nonsense

If you want an argument... present a case, link sources, and maybe I'll read it (you have been on ignore for 2 years, occasionally i click hide/show post to see what you're blathering about)

Stop trolling, stop derailing this thread

Research has demonstrated that concentrated disadvantage and other measures are strongly associated with aggregate-level rates of violence, including across racial and ethnic groups. Less studied is the impact of cultural factors, including religious contextual measures... Results suggest that (1) religious contextual measures have significant crime-reducing associations with violence, (2) these associations are race/ethnic-specific, and (3) religious contextual measures moderate the criminogenic association between disadvantage and violence for Blacks.

The authors explored the relationship between religious involvement and intimate partner violence... They found that: (a) religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence... this protective effect is stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.

Results: Findings indicated that (1) parental alcohol history robustly predicted increased offspring alcohol-dependence symptoms, (2) religious rearing appeared protective (offspring exhibited fewer alcohol-dependence symptoms), (3) religious differentiation accounted for most of the protective effect, (4) other religious variables did not account for the differentiation effect, and (5) black religious adolescents were more frequently raised with differentiating affiliations and exhibited greater protective effects.

Religion is dying

Bullshit!
Don't project your lying behavior onto me AFTER I JUST called you out for it!
If I have ever lied or made a false claim, quote it now
I only ever speak the truth

...
Atheists, by far, are better people than christians
...
Christians make up 80%+ of the prison population in America... atheists 0.2%
...
Christian priests, the leaders of the religion... are a bunch of homosexual child rapists
...
I've argued all these points in your other thread already... I have no more time to waste on you
...

You're a fucking idiot troll... I've argued all these points in your other thread already... I have no more time to waste on you

You refuse to accept facts, and believe in your own little fantasy world... Nobody can argue with someone who doesn't accept facts and evidence when presented.
...

First, don't like your bullshit thread here... I was there when you posted it originally titled "Atheism is Poison"... I am the second person to reply to it... I've seen, you're an idiot

You assume WAY too much... have you done ANY research on this comparison?
Atheists, by far, are better people than christians

Atheists are good people because it's the right thing to do, not because some imaginary sky-god will be upset with us

Christians make up 80%+ of the prison population in America... atheists 0.2%

Christian priests, the leaders of the religion... are a bunch of homosexual child rapists... the Vatican has spent over $3,000,000,000 (Billion, with a B) defending thousands of priests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Why would you even do that?!?  Why spend $3 BILLION defending a bunch of child rapists?  WHY?

If anyone is demonstrating "how one can live for your own pleasure", and "demonstrating the consequences of living this way" it's christians

It most likely looks like a self-suggestion. I do not believe that human health depends on his religious beliefs

The literal insanity of mainstream public discourse, and the lack of insight of this fact, suggests that Man without religion is non-viable.

To put matters another way - religion is the most important thing in the human world.  

Of course, a few individuals, in the short term, can survive atheism mentally intact; but there is no evidence at all that this is a possibility for human societies over more than a few decades - then the signs of insanity (incoherence, exitinction) become more-and-more obvious... or they would do so if loss of insight was not itself a prime sign of insanity.

So insanity shields us from knowledge of our own insanity, because insanity destroys insight as much as it destroys judgement - it affects the whole mode of thinking.

How, then, do we know we, as a society, are insane?

1. By applying older judgements, from the time before Men became insane - reading old books, talking to non-modern people...

2. By looking at the basic biological viability of atheist societies in terms of reproduction, demographics, response to direct and immediate threats, scale of priorities ... Compare societies and groups that are biologically viable, with the modern atheist societies that are not...

3. By reflecting on how we feel about Life. Insane people are almost always miserable - dysphoric, despairing, desperate... almost all of the time. Even the euphoric frenzy of mania is brittle, and crashes into suicidal self-destruction with a high frequency. Is there hope?

In conclusion - religion is the most important thing.

Religion is necessary for long term motivation, for social coherence, for purpose, and to enable the individual to be a part of the whole.

Since religion is necessary, if or when humans either dispense with religion or else place it anything lower than first in priority; then they as individuals and their societies will begin to fall apart and spiral towards alienation, purposelessness, inability to perceive or reason what is important, cowardice (i.e. short-term selfishness), desperation and all the rest of it.

Modernity is the experiment of Man living without Religion. The experiment has been running for several generations.

But the experiment of modernity has deprived modern people of the motivation, honesty and ability to evaluate the results of the experiment - by the always changing criteria of modernity, modernity sees no alternative to itself...

Conclusion: Religion is objectively necessary; and, by one kind of reasoning, therefore true. If you are not religious you are living in error. If you are not religious then you need to become religious. The question you must settle is not whether you should be religious, but which religion you will adopt.

A comment on my publisher’s website asks:



My suggestion: Pray.

Also, consider that the Christian worldview is more coherent, robust, and rational than any secular worldview.
Our model explains things such as why stars look fair and beautiful to our eyes when it serves no credible Darwinian purpose to do so.

Our model explains the naturalistic fallacy, that is, the gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ which secular philosophy cannot explain, and some cannot even address.

Our model explains how free will can exist inside a deterministic universe. A materialist cannot even formulate the question in a rational way.

Our model explains why humans seek beauty. Social-evolutionary explanations for this are less convincing than astrology.

Our model explains how creatures with free will capable of grasping intellectual abstractions can arise in a universe which contains no such thing as intellectual abstractions.

Our model allows investigation of final causes in nature, without which nature cannot properly be understood.

Our model explains the prevalence of so many theists throughout history. The theory that over nine tenths of mankind, including some of the most brilliant thinkers in their age, were raving lunatics who hallucinate about imaginary sky beings is not credible and not supported by evidence.

Our model explains the various miracles and supernatural wonders that are in the older history books, and which, for no scientific reason, were excised from being reported.

Our model explains both why there is a plurality of religions and why there are striking similarities between them.

Our model explains the origin of the universe. By definition, if the universe were all that existed, exists and ever will exist, than a material cause for it is impossible.

Our model explains the current hegemony of the West and makes clear the meaning and purpose of what otherwise seems like insane and suicidal attempts by the apparently sober and sane men on Left to undermine and destroy it.

Our model explains why you should not let your daughter whore around. She is immortal, and will outlast any nation, and language, any institution and human work on Earth.

Our model explains why you should not, once you have truly and deeply contemplated the vastness of the universe and the oppressive span of time to follow the death of everything you know, fall into despair, and end your meaningless life.

Our model gives something to live for nobler than one’s own pleasure seeking.

Our model avoids the logical paradox of asserting man can create meaning in life out of a vacuum. That would require an ability to create meaning out of meaninglessness, which is absurd.

Our model explains why men and women are different, and how we must arrange the dangerous mystery of the mating dance between the sexes to improve our chances to achieve joy rather than misery.

Our model gives rational hope of seeking the departed dead again.

Our model explains human psychology better than perverted old Freud dressing up old Greek myths in make believe, and far better than cranky old Thomas Hobbes and his cynicism.

Our model makes sense. Others are either incorrect, incomplete, or paradoxical, or lead ultimately to wrath or despair. Our model is the sole one which sees life as not futile and death as not bitter.

And, on an intellectual level, our model is the one to which to turn once your mind has become wearied with the reductionist, absurdist and postmodern models, which are in fact no models at all, but rather, are excuses why one should not make a model of the universe, nor seek any answers to deep questions.

It is the model to which to turn once you are heartily sick of hearing “It Just Happened” as the explanation for the origin of man, the universe, and all things.

Naturally, I do not expect any reader to take any of these conclusions as if they were persuasive arguments. Each would require a separate and in depth conversation. This is just a list, and a partial list at that, of the intellectually satisfying fullness of Christian thought. It is the scent and savor of the feast of Christian philosophy, not the meat and potatoes.

This list is not meant to argue the point. It is meant to whet the appetite of intellects starved and desiccated after vain attempt to feast on the shadows, dust and ashes of modern thought, and show the contrast.

There are additional reasons beyond this. All human reason can do is clear away false objections to faith. Faith itself is a supernatural gift bestowed by God to protect his own from the sudden, irrational loss of confidence in the self evident to which our foolish race is prone.