Theists vs Atheists/Agnostics

[allergycare]

Allergy and Asthma Care Allergy & Asthma Care specialize in the diagnosis & treatment of asthma and related pulmonary diseases, etc in philadelphia,south jersey for all treatment

[medigeek]

Medigeek, you should really do some more research before say things like that. Obviously belief in God requires a certain amount of faith, but it does not mean there is 0 evidence (i.e. there is evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection and missing body). You've repeated the same thing over and over and it honestly seems like you yourself have not done ay sincere pursuit of evidence for both sides. And no, googling "10 most violent Quran/Bible verses" does not mean you have at all done any kind of comprehensive research to say that the existence of God has 0 evidence (which is what you usually cite in these types of threads).

 

There isn't any evidence at all to show that Jesus was "resurrected." Existence of a leader of a group of guys who was executed because he was seen as a nuisance and/or minor threat is no big deal.

 

 

When one rejects religion by default that means you believe in Science. Would putting all your faith into Science not be considered a religion in its own right?

 

lolno not sure how anyone on premed101 can say such a thing. I expect this from highly uneducated people who got a 50 in grade 9 science.

 

Science is how you're able to read what I typed here. It's how your daily life functions. Your water isn't heated by faith.. your lights aren't on by faith. You sure as hell don't go on the internet using "faith." It actually happens. Endless evidence which is fact, not theory in many cases.

 

Religion being wrong, itself is a fact. God is a hypothesis that hasn't gotten past that stage yet (and never will). The onus is on those who brought forward the hypothesis to prove it, not on atheists...

 

Can you imagine if I made a claim about something and said that if others can't prove me wrong then I must be right.

[medigeek]

I'm just going to post the source here again instead of pasting parts of the book: Source in PDF: http://resonate.adventurechurch.org/high/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/caseforchrist.pdf

 

how about nonbiased sources/references? You realize using biased sources there's evidence for like 500 gods right now?

[Wayward son]

I actually googled this and was surprised to learn that he did in fact say he is now Agnostic because he can't prove God's non-existence

 

Dawkins did not say that at all. What Dawkins did was agree that he is an atheist/agnostic, as the two terms refer to different concepts (the first is a question of belief, the second whether something is knowable). This was not a change at all from what he outlined in the God Delusion 8 years ago (where he outlined that he was both a "strong atheist" - does not believe in god - and a "temporary agnostic in practice" - meaning that he believes that the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven at this time with our current level of information and state of scientific capabilities), and has been his well-known position for decades. Not a smidgen of a change in the slightest, but simply the case of completely dishonest Christian journalists lying for Jesus about a crappy debate in which Archbishop Williams (who knew full well Dawkins specific positions on the subject) was too rude to allow Dawkins to come close to finishing a single sentence.

 

The closest claim for Dawkins saying that he is no longer an atheist was when Archbishop Williams said to him: "You are described as the world’s most famous atheist" and Dawkins replied "Well not by me."

 

But that was in reply to the world's most famous part, not the atheist part.

 

Dawkins says (then and now) that on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being absolute certainty in a god(s) and 7 being absolute certainty that no god exists, he is a 6.9. That does not mean that Dawkins is no longer an atheist, anymore than it would make someone not a theist because even though they believe in a god(s) they are not absolutely certain. Of all the religious people I know who I have discussed this question with not a single person has ever told me that they are absolutely certain that god exists, and that includes some pretty extreme fundamentalists. Does that mean that almost no one on earth is a theist? Nope. So this ridiculous nonsense that PF500 has claimed on premed for several years about atheism being absolute certainty that there is no god is exactly that: ridiculous nonsense.

 

PF500 is indignant (rightfully so) if anyone tells him what his beliefs must be based on their own interpretation of his religious views, but at the exact same time has no problem repeatedly defining what an atheist is, and doing so with a definition that has never been used by any atheist I have ever heard of and makes no sense with regards to the meaning of the term.

[Exocytosis]

I'd like to add that even if there is evidence for the disappearance of Jesus' body, that doesn't necessarily prove he was the son of God, etc. It could just as easily be taken as proof that he was an alien, or a wizard, or was sucked into a localized wormhole.

[Wayward son]

how about nonbiased sources/references? You realize using biased sources there's evidence for like 500 gods right now?

 

If you have the time, I would actually encourage you to read "The Case for Christ." Preferably reading it along side "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by New Testament scholar Robert M. Price. And then assessing how strong Strobel's "case" is.

[futurepediatric]

If you have the time, I would actually encourage you to read "The Case for Christ." Preferably reading it along side "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by New Testament scholar Robert M. Price. And then assessing how strong Strobel's "case" is.

 

I actually just saw this source online while looking for a pdf. for "The Case for Christ", I guess I'll have to give it a read

[nosuperman]

If you have the time, I would actually encourage you to read "The Case for Christ." Preferably reading it along side "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by New Testament scholar Robert M. Price. And then assessing how strong Strobel's "case" is.

 

Then obviously read "The Case for the Case Against the Case for Christ" and so on

[Wayward son]

Then obviously read "The Case for the Case Against the Case for Christ" and so on

 

Well if such a book is ever written I will read it too. But, my recommendation of both books was serious. The original is a perfect example of an apologetic. It is extremely popular because it tells people who already believe what they want hear. The rebuttal is serious scholarship and serious history by a real NT scholar. Both have value in my opinion, not to change minds (The former will convince almost no non-believers, the latter is avoided by most believers) but to see how two different groups of people view the same claims and come to completely different positions (one rigorous and the other the opposite - in my opinion).

[aravis]

how about nonbiased sources/references? You realize using biased sources there's evidence for like 500 gods right now?

 

Can you disprove that Jesus/God exists?

 

If you met God, do you think you'd like Him?

[axialpac]

Dawkins did not say that at all. What Dawkins did was agree that he is an atheist/agnostic, as the two terms refer to different concepts (the first is a question of belief, the second whether something is knowable). This was not a change at all from what he outlined in the God Delusion 8 years ago (where he outlined that he was both a "strong atheist" - does not believe in god - and a "temporary agnostic in practice" - meaning that he believes that the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven at this time with our current level of information and state of scientific capabilities), and has been his well-known position for decades. Not a smidgen of a change in the slightest, but simply the case of completely dishonest Christian journalists lying for Jesus about a crappy debate in which Archbishop Williams (who knew full well Dawkins specific positions on the subject) was too rude to allow Dawkins to come close to finishing a single sentence.

I googled it again and you're right. What threw me off was this line in this article that I read: The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who was chairing the debate asked Dawkins: "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic?" To which Dawkins replied that he did."

Regardless, thanks for clearing it up

[Silverwolf1277]

No, the two questions are the exact same, just worded differently. If you were to ask an atheist “do you believe in God?”, they will say no. Likewise they will also answer no if you asked them “does God exist?.”

Moreover, an agnostic would answer, “I can’t know, and I’ll never know” to both questions. And finally, a theist would answer yes to both questions.

 

Your second paragraph doesn’t make sense, because as an atheist you’re saying that it is definite that God does not exist. Without faltering. How can you take such a black and white approach to the question “does God exist” and then do a 180 degrees and say “from a scale of 1-7, I’m around a 6 with regards to God not existing”? That’s like saying, “I’m 90% sure God doesn’t exist.” Okay… so you’re 10% sure God exists?

 

Highly unlikely based on what? And how did you come to that conclusion? That’s my point, you don’t have any evidence. You say you’re someone that will believe in something only if there is evidence . . . you’re believing in non-existence based on zero evidence.

 

My final point, is that yes you can prove a negative claim. A negative claim being defined as “X does not exist” in response to “does X exist?.” A positive claim would be “X exists”. That aside, there’s nothing special or unique about not being able to prove non-existence, because there are cases where you can’t prove existence either (in general). There are also cases where you can prove a negative claim (non-existence), just as can with a positive claim. If you don’t believe me that it is possible to prove non-existence, then go read up on some propositional logic or just google “evidence of absence”. Can you see how it’s such a weak argument against theism by saying “you can’t prove non-existence” when there are cases when you can?

 

Now with regards to God, neither atheists nor theists can prove his nonexistence (negative claim) or existence (positive claim), respectively. Simple conclusion? Both sides have a doxastic attitude with regards to the existence of a God, without evidence. From an evidentialist perspective, both beliefs are equally irrational.

 

Ugh. No, they're not the same question. Think about it. If I ask you 'do you believe there is a dead body in your trunk?', I'm assuming (&hoping) you'd say no. But if I ask you 'do you KNOW that there is no dead body in your trunk?' you can't answer no unless you have your trunk open and are looking at it. One is a question of knowledge (from the Greek 'gnosis' for knowledge), the other is a question of belief.

 

And I don't know where you keep getting things from that I haven't said. The poll asks if I believe in a God. I don't. That's not the same as saying he 100% does not exist. The 1-7 scale is not a complete 180, it's just good scientific sense. I'm not a 1 or a 7 about anything, even gravity.

 

It's highly unlikely because the universe has been around for over 13 million years and this is a clearly man-made concept that's only a few thousand years old. Same way I feel about unicorns. Do you think unicorns exist just because you haven't seen evidence that they don't?

 

And I'll prove the non-existence of god as soon as you prove the non-existence of unicorns. "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." I think it can safely be assumed that if god and/or unicorns had existed for the past millions of years, there would be SOME shred of evidence for it.

[axialpac]

Ugh. No, they're not the same question. Think about it. If I ask you 'do you believe there is a dead body in your trunk?', I'm assuming (&hoping) you'd say no. But if I ask you 'do you KNOW that there is no dead body in your trunk?' you can't answer no unless you have your trunk open and are looking at it. One is a question of knowledge (from the Greek 'gnosis' for knowledge), the other is a question of belief.

 

And I don't know where you keep getting things from that I haven't said. The poll asks if I believe in a God. I don't. That's not the same as saying he 100% does not exist. The 1-7 scale is not a complete 180, it's just good scientific sense. I'm not a 1 or a 7 about anything, even gravity.

 

It's highly unlikely because the universe has been around for over 13 million years and this is a clearly man-made concept that's only a few thousand years old. Same way I feel about unicorns. Do you think unicorns exist just because you haven't seen evidence that they don't?

 

And I'll prove the non-existence of god as soon as you prove the non-existence of unicorns. "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." I think it can safely be assumed that if god and/or unicorns had existed for the past millions of years, there would be SOME shred of evidence for it.

Well maybe if you worded the second question "does God exist?" in a way that made it a direct "knowledge" question (i.e. "do you know if God exists?"), I would have seen the distinction. But you didn't.

 

You say it's "high unlikely b/c the universe has been around for 13 billion years" . . . My answer is, so what if the universe is billions of years old? Seeing as we can barely comprehend its existence, whether it's infinite or finite, whether it's one universe of many, or whether the part of our observable universe is a brane inside a higher-dimensional universe/space. Who knows? The issue with your argument is that a theist could twist this fact in their favour. It doesn't lend any clarity whatsoever towards the possibility of God existing or non existing.

 

I don't need to prove the nonexistence of unicorns, lol what!?! Like I said in my earlier posts, there are negative claims that can be proved and others like God and "unicorns" that can't (to the best of our capabilities atm anyways).

 

Okay, the ignorance of absence quote . . . why do you get to decide that "God" falls under the category of the "some circumstances"? Seeing as God (as described by a lot of religions) is an omni-potent, higher power that supposedly created you and I, surely if he decided to conceal himself from us he would do so with out a problem. So we end up back to "absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence." It's kind of a tricky issue. Even deciding whether God really is a man-made concept or not . . . personally I don't have an opinion at the moment of whether he is or isn't which is why I chose the "I don't care" option.

[Silverwolf1277]

Well maybe if you worded the second question "does God exist?" in a way that made it a direct "knowledge" question (i.e. "do you know if God exists?"), I would have seen the distinction. But you didn't.

 

You say it's "high unlikely b/c the universe has been around for 13 billion years" . . . My answer is, so what if the universe is billions of years old? Seeing as we can barely comprehend its existence, whether it's infinite or finite, whether it's one universe of many, or whether the part of our observable universe is a brane inside a higher-dimensional universe/space. Who knows? The issue with your argument is that a theist could twist this fact in their favour. It doesn't lend any clarity whatsoever towards the possibility of God existing or non existing.

 

I don't need to prove the nonexistence of unicorns, lol what!?! Like I said in my earlier posts, there are negative claims that can be proved and others like God and "unicorns" that can't (to the best of our capabilities atm anyways).

 

Okay, the ignorance of absence quote . . . why do you get to decide that "God" falls under the category of the "some circumstances"? Seeing as God (as described by a lot of religions) is an omni-potent, higher power that supposedly created you and I, surely if he decided to conceal himself from us he would do so with out a problem. So we end up back to "absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence." It's kind of a tricky issue. Even deciding whether God really is a man-made concept or not . . . personally I don't have an opinion at the moment of whether he is or isn't which is why I chose the "I don't care" option.

 

Bingo. So it is equally logical to assume the non-existence of unicorns and god until there is evidence to the contrary. It is not logical to assume that just because we can't disprove its existence that the probability of it existing and not existing are equal. Just like you can say that unicorns probably don't exist (i.e. their non-existence is more likely than their existence), I can say that god probably doesn't exist.

[axialpac]

Bingo. So it is equally logical to assume the non-existence of unicorns and god until there is evidence to the contrary. It is not logical to assume that just because we can't disprove its existence that the probability of it existing and not existing are equal. Just like you can say that unicorns probably don't exist (i.e. their non-existence is more likely than their existence), I can say that god probably doesn't exist.

There's two things that I see, that I don't agree with:

1. You're equating the non-existence of unicorns to the non-existence of God. This is futile. Are unicorns the ones that created the universe? Can you see where your argument fails or shall I extrapolate?

2. No it is not logical to assume the non-existence of something if you do not have any significant evidence for it. That's my entire point. There's zero proof. Nada. Null. Just because you can't prove it at the moment, doesn't make it logical. Saying God is more likely to not exist than exist is also substantiated by zero logic. Why is it so hard to admit that there's no logic involved on the atheist's side as much as there's no logic involved on the theist's side?

[Silverwolf1277]

There's two things that I see, that I don't agree with:

1. You're equating the non-existence of unicorns to the non-existence of God. This is futile. Are unicorns the ones that created the universe? Can you see where your argument fails or shall I extrapolate?

2. No it is not logical to assume the non-existence of something if you do not have any significant evidence for it. That's my entire point. There's zero proof. Nada. Null. Just because you can't prove it at the moment, doesn't make it logical. Saying God is more likely to not exist than exist is also substantiated by zero evidence. Why is it so hard to admit that there's no logic involved on the atheist's side as much as there's no logic involved on the theist's side?

 

Because you're making an exception for god/religion/etc. And only one god. I don't see where my argument is futile except for the fact that you are granting religion/god exalted status for some reason. Do Zeus or Thor get the same treatment? I'm guessing not.

 

Here's the reason it's unlikely that god exists: he's supposedly there to take care of humans right? But we evolved from other species. Why just us? And wtf took him so long if he's omnipotent? And why is there no mention of kangaroos in the bible? Nothing in any religious writing suggests knowledge beyond what people at that specific time and place would have known, which is why it is in all likelihood purely man-made.

 

We have a pretty good idea of how we and the universe came to be, and none of it suggests divine intervention.

[Orcamute]

There's two things that I see, that I don't agree with:

1. You're equating the non-existence of unicorns to the non-existence of God. This is futile. Are unicorns the ones that created the universe? Can you see where your argument fails or shall I extrapolate?

2. No it is not logical to assume the non-existence of something if you do not have any significant evidence for it. That's my entire point. There's zero proof. Nada. Null. Just because you can't prove it at the moment, doesn't make it logical. Saying God is more likely to not exist than exist is also substantiated by zero logic. Why is it so hard to admit that there's no logic involved on the atheist's side as much as there's no logic involved on the theist's side?

 

Okay.

 

1. Spaghetti Monster. Prove that he doesn't exist. And yes, he did in fact create the Universe. His drunk endeavors when doing so, makes his existence a much more likely representation of the incompetence of the said "creator" of the universe.

 

2. It is not logical to assume that something could be real because it cannot be disproved. Do you believe in Santa? Easter Bunny? Tooth Fairy? no?? Well why not??

[Exocytosis]

1. You're equating the non-existence of unicorns to the non-existence of God. This is futile. Are unicorns the ones that created the universe?

 

Maybe? Do you have a reason to suspect they were not?

[axialpac]

Because you're making an exception for god/religion/etc. And only one god. I don't see where my argument is futile except for the fact that you are granting religion/god exalted status for some reason. Do Zeus or Thor get the same treatment? I'm guessing not.

 

Here's the reason it's unlikely that god exists: he's supposedly there to take care of humans right? But we evolved from other species. Why just us? And wtf took him so long if he's omnipotent? And why is there no mention of kangaroos in the bible? Nothing in any religious writing suggests knowledge beyond what people at that specific time and place would have known, which is why it is in all likelihood purely man-made.

 

We have a pretty good idea of how we and the universe came to be, and none of it suggests divine intervention.

It wasn't an intentional bias, referring to just one God. But I can just easily extend my arguments to include multiple deities, and Thor and Zeus. From now one I'll just make my arguments based on theists believing a supreme power having created the universe (whether he is named Thor, Zeus, God, Allah, Krishna, Shiva whatever) and atheists obviously believing in no supreme power.

 

But don't you think you have to make that exception for the sake of this discussion? I can see where you're coming from, because you already have the preconceived notion that a supreme power is a man-made concept, just as unicorns are. But I don't see it that way, as in I can't tell you "it is more likely God is/isn't man-made." that's why I'm making an exception b/c I think that a supreme's power existence/non-existance is more important than a flying horse with a horn. Almost (if all) cultures around the world have some sort of creation story, but not almost (all) cultures have unicorn stories (quick google search: unicorns were derived from European folklore). That's why I think it's futile to equate both. (by the way, whether or not I'm right in granting this "exception" I think is debatable)

 

Personally I don't know anything about the bible and what's in it (other than Jesus being born to a virgin). As far as why we were created, I'm pretty sure different religions have different notions.

 

With your last sentence, like I said before theists could just as well twist that fact in their favour.

[Silverwolf1277]

It wasn't an intentional bias, referring to just one God. But I can just easily extend my arguments to include multiple deities, and Thor and Zeus. From now one I'll just make my arguments based on theists believing a supreme power having created the universe (whether he is named Thor, Zeus, God, Allah, Krishna, Shiva whatever) and atheists obviously believing in no supreme power.

 

But don't you think you have to make that exception for the sake of this discussion? I can see where you're coming from, because you already have the preconceived notion that a supreme power is a man-made concept, just as unicorns are. But I don't see it that way, as in I can't tell you "it is more likely God is/isn't man-made." that's why I'm making an exception b/c I think that a supreme's power existence/non-existance is more important than a flying horse with a horn. Almost (if all) cultures around the world have some sort of creation story, but not almost (all) cultures have unicorn stories (quick google search: unicorns were derived from European folklore). That's why I think it's futile to equate both. (by the way, whether or not I'm right in granting this "exception" I think is debatable)

 

Personally I don't know anything about the bible and what's in it (other than Jesus being born to a virgin). As far as why we were created, I'm pretty sure different religions have different notions.

 

With your last sentence, like I said before theists could just as well twist that fact in their favour.

 

I don't see the need for an exception. You say you have no issue with Zeus being considered in the same vein. But I'm betting you don't think that he's responsible for lightning. Or subscribe to the belief among some Native tribes that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.

 

I'd say natural events are pretty important, and go hand-in-hand with who created/controls the earth. We can't disprove the existence of Zeus, but can do a pretty good job of explaining lightning without him, therefore it is likely safe to assume he doesn't exist. Unless you don't think that's a safe assumption. In which case you might actually be more logically consistent than people who believe in only one god, but I still question why you get to decide that an exception be made. Dragons are a good example. They're pretty ubiquitous across cultures, and are quite significant in a number of mythologies with responsibilities for natural and human events. But it seems safe to assume their non-existence, does it not?

[Orcamute]

Interesting read;

 

"Religious belief tends to decrease as education and income levels increase, yet doctors are highly educated and, on average, well compensated. The finding also differs radically from 90 years of studies showing that only a minority of scientists (excluding physicians) believes in God or an afterlife.

 

“We did not think physicians were nearly this religious,” said study author Farr Curlin, Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University. “We suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine. The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions.”

[Silverwolf1277]

Interesting read;

 

"Religious belief tends to decrease as education and income levels increase, yet doctors are highly educated and, on average, well compensated. The finding also differs radically from 90 years of studies showing that only a minority of scientists (excluding physicians) believes in God or an afterlife.

 

“We did not think physicians were nearly this religious,” said study author Farr Curlin, Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University. “We suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine. The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions.”

 

Very interesting, especially given the results of similar polls from the National Academy of Sciences that have found very low rates of believers. I feel that some basic training as a scientist should be a part of medical education (if it's not already).

[Wayward son]

I voted "no" but I would change my vote to "don't give a sh!t" if I could. People who argue religion are a joke and people who argue against it are more of a joke. Never question people's religion or political interests.

 

Why not? I am very grateful to have lived my life with friends, family, and complete strangers who have questioned my own religious and political views. That has allowed me to better understand their views, reflect on my own views, see where there are contradictions etc. If I meet someone who feels that their own religious and political views are out of bounds for questioning, that is good for them, but I don't care to spend my time with closed-minded people.

 

Nobody will ever change their opinion because of what you have to say.

 

Interesting....as I have changed many of my own opinions because what others have said, and I have changed the opinions of others from time to time.

 

If you go back a couple years ago in Europe people were executed by the state for questioning the existence of god. Now such a thing would be unthinkable in the very same countries. How you suppose such a change came about? My guess is that it was because some people were willing to question religious views....

 

If you go back 175 years in the US there was little opposition to slavery among people who could vote. 15 years later there was this civil war thingy. How do you suppose such change came about? My guess is that it was because some people were willing to question political views....and a minority promoted political views which were unpopular until they changed many minds.

 

I honestly couldn't care less about what other people believe. 1) I won't change that 2) It wouldn't be worth the effort even if I did change it. Honestly, who cares???? People who think religion is a joke just has to remember people who are religious think they're a joke. Basically a big, never ending circus!

 

I would not wish to live in a country where religion holds influence over the people in the way that Saudi Arabia, Iran or even the US does. Or live in a country where religion holds the influence that it used to in the Europe or Canada of the past. Religious and political views in the west have changed dramatically over the past couple hundred years which completely ruins your whole argument.

 

You couldn't care less about what people believe....yet apparently care enough about what people in this thread believe to come here and tell us to shut up...bizarre.

[medigeek]

I voted "no" but I would change my vote to "don't give a sh!t" if I could. People who argue religion are a joke and people who argue against it are more of a joke. Never question people's religion or political interests. Nobody will ever change their opinion because of what you have to say.

 

I honestly couldn't care less about what other people believe. 1) I won't change that 2) It wouldn't be worth the effort even if I did change it. Honestly, who cares???? People who think religion is a joke just has to remember people who are religious think they're a joke. Basically a big, never ending circus!

 

Lot of people have actually become atheists as a result of reading stuff like this. Or have agnostic. If you're wasting your life thinking 'oh no thats a sin!" then well... thats an issue

[medigeek]

Why not? I am very grateful to have lived my life with friends, family, and complete strangers who have questioned my own religious and political views. That has allowed me to better understand their views, reflect on my own views, see where there are contradictions etc. If I meet someone who feels that their own religious and political views are out of bounds for questioning, that is good for them, but I don't care to spend my time with closed-minded people.

 

 

 

Interesting....as I have changed many of my own opinions because what others have said, and I have changed the opinions of others from time to time.

 

If you go back a couple years ago in Europe people were executed by the state for questioning the existence of god. Now such a thing would be unthinkable in the very same countries. How you suppose such a change came about? My guess is that it was because some people were willing to question religious views....

 

If you go back 175 years in the US there was little opposition to slavery among people who could vote. 15 years later there was this civil war thingy. How do you suppose such change came about? My guess is that it was because some people were willing to question political views....and a minority promoted political views which were unpopular until they changed many minds.

 

 

 

I would not wish to live in a country where religion holds influence over the people in the way that Saudi Arabia, Iran or even the US does. Or live in a country where religion holds the influence that it used to in the Europe or Canada of the past. Religious and political views in the west have changed dramatically over the past couple hundred years which completely ruins your whole argument.

 

You couldn't care less about what people believe....yet apparently care enough about what people in this thread believe to come here and tell us to shut up...bizarre.

I like to think of the youth in religious countries who have their good years wasted away by a fairytale story.