PDA

View Full Version : Devastating Arguments Against Christianity



Bluesky
01-29-2014, 09:44 AM
http://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/devastating-arguments-against-christianity-courtesy-of-the-internet/

Aristotle
01-29-2014, 10:24 AM
Oh, my.

The info on wars is amazing. It shoots down a favorite 'go to' line for some here.

The Berean
01-29-2014, 04:50 PM
Interesting stuff.

The Left Sock
01-29-2014, 07:38 PM
Sorry, but I honestly don't see this stuff as credible. It's a blogger, taking real information and stretching it past the edge of realism, to paint a pretty picture.

It's a nice feel-good exercise for those who wish for this kind of truth, but it falls well short of the mark.

Westender 3
01-29-2014, 08:13 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/buzzolasoo/7r1w366_zpsb1fac836.jpg


http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

Bluesky
01-29-2014, 08:13 PM
It'd be more interesting if you posted counter-factuals or sources on which to base your incredulity. Right now, you've just posted a feel-good response.

The Left Sock
01-29-2014, 08:37 PM
Well, let's take a look at the statistics of war.

The author states this:

"Of the 1,763 wars presented, a mere 7% involved a religious cause. When Islam is subtracted from the equation, that number drops to 3.2%.

In terms of casualties, religious wars account for only 2% of all people killed by warfare."

It is disingenuous, for a number of reasons.

There is a big difference between a war that occurs with an overtly religious causation, and those in which religion plays an integral part.

For example, the war in Afghanistan. The official position was that the invasion of Afghanistan was a response to a terrorist attack on America on 9/11. So the official reason for the war is listed as 'terrorism'. Agreed?

But we all know, only too well, that the attacks on America during 9/11 had a well-defined religious aspect to it. The attacks were the result of a declared Jihad, a holy-war, called for and orchestrated by Bin Laden.

So, what will the history books write? What will children read 50 years from now? Will the war in Afghanistan be listed as a religious war, or a war on terrorism? See my point?

Even in ancient times, many wars were waged based on aggression between cultures, but there was a religious dynamic at play. Every one loves the story of Troy, a romantic tale in which a woman causes a colossal conflict between two nations. It was a clear-cut causation for war, without a religious aspect to it, right? Not so fast!

Warriors of ancient times paid tribute to the Gods, thought that everything they were doing was to win the favor of the Gods, and were willing to lay down their lives, in some misguided effort to impress the Gods. Children were raised to become warriors, with this single purpose of pleasing the Gods, as a central theme to their existence.

So, while the battle of Troy may have been a grudge match between two men fighting over a woman, most of the casualties that ensued were driven by religious ideals. Religious ideals are what propel men to kill and die, when they have no other tangible reason to be on the battlefield.

And so it goes, throughout the ages, men taking up arms against each other for a wide variety of reasons, but in many instances, giving up their lives for God, or country.

So, to cherry-pick your way through an encyclopedia of war, and come to the conclusion that only 7% of wars were caused by religion (3.2% if you discount the evil Muslims), is intellectual amateur-hour, a childish attempt to defend religion, that just doesn't stand the test of scrutiny.

Aristotle
01-29-2014, 09:42 PM
Sock, here's hoping your next response will actually address the issue

The Left Sock
01-29-2014, 09:45 PM
There's just no joy in this world!

That was the most cohesive, comprehensive response, with devastating effect, I have conjured up in quite some time.

No gratitude for hard work, not around here!

Bluesky
01-30-2014, 09:23 AM
correlation = causation

The Left Sock
01-30-2014, 12:39 PM
Machine = the sum of its parts.

War is a machine.

You need all the parts in place, to get a war going. Religion plays a major role in many conflicts. There's not getting around that, no matter how you slice up the statistics.

So, was Afghanistan just a war on terror?

Aristotle
01-30-2014, 12:45 PM
yes it was/is

Bluesky
01-30-2014, 12:51 PM
You need all the parts in place, to get a war going.

Nonsense. War is not a machine of irreducible complexity.

Aristotle
01-30-2014, 12:53 PM
War is a machine.

You need all the parts in place, to get a war going. Religion plays a major role in many conflicts. There's not getting around that, no matter how you slice up the statistics.



Okay.

But you can't just leave it there, you have to provide proof, or at least a very strong persuasive argument, that it is the case. Just saying it does not make it true.

The Left Sock
01-30-2014, 12:56 PM
What is nonsense, is the suggestion that wars usually have a single cause.

What is fraudulent, is citing singular causes, and trying to peddle propaganda for your cause, while ignoring the truth.

Westender 3
01-30-2014, 01:01 PM
It'd be more interesting if you posted counter-factuals or sources on which to base your incredulity. Right now, you've just posted a feel-good response.


It's all in the link, Gramps.

Aristotle
01-30-2014, 01:16 PM
What is nonsense, is the suggestion that wars usually have a single cause.

What is fraudulent, is citing singular causes, and trying to peddle propaganda for your cause, while ignoring the truth.

Okay.

But you can't just leave it there, you have to provide proof, or at least a very strong persuasive argument, that it is the case. Just saying it does not make it true.

The Left Sock
01-30-2014, 01:18 PM
Reduced to spamming now? Someone's just itching to go back on the list!

Aristotle
01-30-2014, 01:21 PM
Reduced to spamming now? Someone's just itching to go back on the list!

Trying to help you out. You seem to think because you say something it makes it true. I can say without equivocation that you are the only one who thinks that. As such, you'll need much, much more 'meat' to your responses.

The Left Sock
01-30-2014, 01:22 PM
Have it your way, then!

Aristotle
01-30-2014, 01:24 PM
Have it your way, then!

Take my hand, we'll learn together!

Bluesky
01-30-2014, 02:05 PM
What is nonsense, is the suggestion that wars usually have a single cause.

What is fraudulent, is citing singular causes, and trying to peddle propaganda for your cause, while ignoring the truth.


I'm getting dizzy.

Bluesky
01-30-2014, 03:04 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/buzzolasoo/7r1w366_zpsb1fac836.jpg


http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

So here is some counter evidence to the above claims.

The critical problem with Zuckermanís research is that he contrasted Atheism/Agnosticism with those who say they believe in God. Roughly 80% of North Americans will profess that they believe in God. There is a huge difference between that percentage and the number of people who are regularly at their place of worship, being taught and influenced by what they believe.

I have a resource based on surveys that tilt things the other way yet again, by looking at those who not only say they believe in God but are actually regular church attenders. In other words, their belief actually makes a difference.

I have the names of the authors of these surveys - if you want verification, you can ask, and do the research at your library. I donít think they are online.

Divorce: Religious people are far more likely to marry and stay married than the irreligious.
In the U.S. (these are all US figures)
Church attenders: 25% have been divorced.
Sometimes attend: 34% have been divorced
Never attend: 45% have been divorced

Committing of crimes
Survey Question: ďWere you ever picked up, or charged, by the police for any reason whether or not you were guilty?Ē
Attenders: 6%
Sometimes: 13%
Never: 21%


Abortion (I have no figures on this)
Abuse of spouse or child (Or parent child relationships):
Over the years, a number of studies have reported that the more religious college students feel closer to their parents.15 Then came an unusually definitive study of mother-child relationships based on reports of the degree of closeness as rated by both mother and child, over a period of twenty-four years.16 Lisa Pearce of Pennsylvania State University and William Axinn of the University of Michigan used data from a random sample of 867 white families in the Detroit metropolitan area who had a child born in 1961.
Mothers were interviewed in 1961, 1963, 1966, 1977, 1980, and 1985. Sons and daughters were interviewed in 1980 and again in 1985. The major findings were as follows: The more frequent the motherís church attendance, the closer the mother-child relationship, as reported from both sides.

The greater the importance that mothers place on religion has an even stronger positive effect on mother-child relations than does church attendance. The higher the church attendance rates of both mothers and children has an even greater positive effect on mother-child relations than does the motherís attendance alone. The greater the importance placed on religion by both mothers and children has an even greater positive effect on mother-child relations than does the importance placed on religion by mothers alone.

If children seldom or never attend church, the mother-child relationship is weaker regardless of the frequency of motherís attendance. When children place little importance on religion, the mother-child relationship is weaker regardless of the frequency of motherís attendance.

Financially secure and Education:
Religious students have a superior level of academic achievement, however it is measured.Compared with less religious students, religious students

Score higher on all standardized achievement tests.
Get better grades.
Are more likely to do their homework.
Are less likely to be expelled or suspended.
Are less likely to drop out of school.


No one disputes these findings. What is widely disputed it why these correlations exist.

Those who own their own home (as a success metric)
Attenders: 75%
Sometimes: 63%
Never: 56%
Employment: have you ever been unemployed?
Attenders: 20%
Sometimes: 32%
Never: 37%
Ever been on Welfare?
Attenders: 28%
Sometimes: 37%
Never 43%
Have you been behind on your rent or mortgage this past year?
Attenders: 4%
Sometiems: 9%
Never: 11%

There's more but I have to get back to my priorities

The Left Sock
01-30-2014, 03:15 PM
"Divorce: Religious people are far more likely to marry and stay married than the irreligious.
In the U.S. (these are all US figures)
Church attenders: 25% have been divorced.
Sometimes attend: 34% have been divorced
Never attend: 45% have been divorced"

Well, let's start at the top. The first stats, listed on divorce, are false:

"Wright combed through the General Social Survey, a vast demographic study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and found that Christians, like adherents of other religions, have a divorce rate of about 42%. The rate among religiously unaffiliated Americans is 50%.

When Wright examined the statistics on evangelicals, he found worship attendance has a big influence on the numbers. Six in 10 evangelicals who never attend had been divorced or separated, compared to just 38% of weekly attendees."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-14-divorce-christians_N.htm

Your numbers are completely out of whack, with the statistics above. Care to explain?

The Voice
01-30-2014, 07:51 PM
http://listverse.com/2008/04/02/8-atrocities-committed-in-the-name-of-religion/

Devastating arguments against religion.

Aristotle
01-30-2014, 08:00 PM
http://listverse.com/2008/04/02/8-atrocities-committed-in-the-name-of-religion/

Devastating arguments against religion.

Buddhist Burma is number 8

but...but...

And, why, praytell, is the murder of Christians by the secular Romans considered damning of Christianity?

The Voice
01-30-2014, 08:03 PM
It's Damning of religion.

Aristotle
01-30-2014, 08:09 PM
It's Damning of religion.

how?

The Voice
01-30-2014, 08:11 PM
Sorry off topic I guess.

The Berean
01-30-2014, 08:30 PM
Sorry off topic I guess.

Not at all, by all means fill us in!!!

The Voice
01-30-2014, 08:56 PM
Not at all, by all means fill us in!!!

OK, so you don't think that link was damning of religion?

The Berean
01-30-2014, 09:26 PM
OK, so you don't think that link was damning of religion?

Oh, I suppose it tries to be. All it really point out, IMO, is that religion is all to often one thing,, while real Christianity is something else.

When politics, superstition and the selfishness of man over ride the golden rule, religion has run amok.

Bluesky
01-31-2014, 10:02 AM
"Divorce: Religious people are far more likely to marry and stay married than the irreligious.
In the U.S. (these are all US figures)
Church attenders: 25% have been divorced.
Sometimes attend: 34% have been divorced
Never attend: 45% have been divorced"

Well, let's start at the top. The first stats, listed on divorce, are false:

"Wright combed through the General Social Survey, a vast demographic study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and found that Christians, like adherents of other religions, have a divorce rate of about 42%. The rate among religiously unaffiliated Americans is 50%.

When Wright examined the statistics on evangelicals, he found worship attendance has a big influence on the numbers. Six in 10 evangelicals who never attend had been divorced or separated, compared to just 38% of weekly attendees."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-14-divorce-christians_N.htm

Your numbers are completely out of whack, with the statistics above. Care to explain?

While the figures don't agree, the conclusions do. Those who are in regular attendance fare better in their marriages than those who don't.
As for an explanation of the difference in the stats, I cannot access the General Social survey from which both the author I am reading and Wright have drawn from. Perhaps a different sample group? I have no idea.

But I have always disagreed with the mantra that Christians divorce or separate at the same rate that everyone else does. It never bore out in my observations, having lived in the Christian milieu, nor was it the observation of many of my colleagues, who all buzzed about in in amazement after Barna published his findings.

The Left Sock
01-31-2014, 01:24 PM
Actually, the real difference is nominal. Whether or not a couple has children likely plays a larger role in divorce rates, than religious affiliation.

What I did find while researching, blew me away. If you look at these census stats from America, you will find that politically conservative states have higher divorce rates than traditionally liberal or Democrat states:

http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html

So, while being a Christian may have a slight advantage in avoiding divorce from non-religious folks, being a Conservative, or at least living in a Conservative State, does appear to present a lot more risk!

Bluesky
02-01-2014, 09:35 AM
Actually, the real difference is nominal. Whether or not a couple has children likely plays a larger role in divorce rates, than religious affiliation

Depending of course, which figures you WANT to believe. Also, your second sentence - it's NOT religious affiliation that makes the difference. It's commitment to the faith that makes the difference. And that is a big difference. The number showing religious affiliation is much higher than those who attend services regularly. Take the mere 'professors' out of the equation and the marriage survival rate leaps up significantly.

The Berean
02-01-2014, 09:46 AM
Depending of course, which figures you WANT to believe. Also, your second sentence - it's NOT religious affiliation that makes the difference. It's commitment to the faith that makes the difference. And that is a big difference. The number showing religious affiliation is much higher than those who attend services regularly. Take the mere 'professors' out of the equation and the marriage survival rate leaps up significantly.

And that is why I could never believe those statistics either. Just never saw it happening.

The Left Sock
02-01-2014, 03:47 PM
"Take the mere 'professors' out of the equation and the marriage survival rate leaps up significantly."

Exactly. Take the science out of something, and you can print any truth you like.

The Berean
02-01-2014, 06:42 PM
"Take the mere 'professors' out of the equation and the marriage survival rate leaps up significantly."

Exactly. Take the science out of something, and you can print any truth you like.

You realize "professors" means those who SAY they are Christians, but don't act like it, or take it seriously, NOT scientists???

I am certainly aware of divorces among Christians I had considered to be genuine, but the numbers can't be more than 2 to 5 percent at the outside.

Bluesky
02-01-2014, 07:24 PM
"Take the mere 'professors' out of the equation and the marriage survival rate leaps up significantly."

Exactly. Take the science out of something, and you can print any truth you like.

Huh? A professor is one who 'professes to be a Christian' not a university prof. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

The Voice
02-09-2014, 11:08 AM
Funny thing is about stats you can work them out to mean whatever you want.

I'd be willing to bet that those stats would be far less skewed if they only included the middle class.

The Berean
02-09-2014, 01:58 PM
Funny thing is about stats you can work them out to mean whatever you want.



If that were always true, no one would bother using surveys at all.

Obviously not so.