Survey Reveals Growing Ranks of "No Religion" Population

[Pennsylvania]

3. How do you justify God punishing Adam and Eve for something the did before having any knowledge about good and evil?

In other words, this reduces to the tautology: "man sins because he sins".

 

[TGGRV]

Another question. If everything was created in present form, why do humans still have the genes to make tails, whales the genes to make legs and chicken the genes to make teeth? It's illogical. And the same design bullshit doesn't work, why don't humans have the genes to make feathers then? Well, aside from the point that animals with feathers are on another branch of the tree of life - which is evolution.

If everything was created in present form, why don't we find humans in the same geological strata(not relative depth btw) with dinosaurs?

If everything was created as they are now, why are there LOTS of transitional fossils?

Why aren't no peer reviewed scientific studies that prove evolution wrong and creationism right? Such a scientist would win Nobel prizes, notoriety... lol

 

[PaulaGem]

Originally Posted by PaulaGem View Post
The metaphysical is highly subjective, each person experiences GOD (your "fix" feelings )through the filter of their own needs and goals. Laws and scientific theory can not be based on feelings, that's just common sense.

Fixed that for ya.

If I don't presume to tell you what you experience what gives you the right to tell me what I experience?

I have on several occasions gotten information through metaphysical channels that was correct and there was no other way I could have obtained that information.

These specific personal metaphysical experiences are sufficient proof for me of the existence One that answers prayer and seeks to guide me. I believe this is an experience that is equally available to all men.

Just because you have not experienced this personally gives you no right to correct or doubt my experience.

 

[angelatc]

indoctrination = teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
As you see in those videos, evolution, for example, it is accepted CRITICALLY. The only people who get into circular arguments and just use a book with no proof to justify themselves are religious people and this is why religion has no place in schools and just in the church.

I'm not even religious, but I can see quite clearly that the hysteria over creationism is too irrational to be anything except dangerous

...

So, only the majority have rights in the schools. Nice dogma!

 

[PaulaGem]

I think you underestimate how weak the human soul actually is, especially in the young who are surrounded with messages of instant gratification and shallow, single-minded thought more than any other time in history.

If their parents had a strong Spiritual presence this would not matter. What you are saying is not that the soul is weak, but that God can't make his presence known without Bibles in schools.

Teaching only biological science serves to dehumanize us - turns us into nothing, really.

Sorry, in science class you teach science - period.

Learning political science makes it clear that the bigger the government, the smaller the church.

The church is just another political unit. The church is losing political power to another political unit - big deal.

Kids spend 9 hours a day in school, 3 hours a day with their parents, and 1 hour a week (maybe) in church. Unless you're willing to turn into an absolute fundamentalist, you don't stand a chance of developing a child who can think outside the confines of the physical world.

I'm not even religious, but I can see quite clearly that the hysteria over creationism is too irrational to be anything except dangerous.

Children get their sustenance from their parents. The influence of parents in children's lives is so strong that abused children usually won't "rat out" their parents, but they defend them in spite of prolonged abuse.

Three hours a day with parents seems like an underestimate, and you aren't allowing for weekends, but even so - I believe parents with a real Spiritual life will raise children who are open to the metaphysical.

I think this problem is the same as many others in our world - parents think going to church will fix the kids, but they have to get their own Spiritual house in order and walk the walk themselves.

 

[Deborah K]

Maybe the reason is because people are finally starting to recognize that science is a good thing.



Yeah. If only they had spent more time being indoctrinated in church.

You are missing the point. Read "The deliberate dumbing down of America".

 

[Deborah K]

YouTube - Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)
YouTube - Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw

indoctrination = teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
As you see in those videos, evolution, for example, it is accepted CRITICALLY. The only people who get into circular arguments and just use a book with no proof to justify themselves are religious people and this is why religion has no place in schools and just in the church.

YouTube - Why Teaching Creationism is a Horrible Idea


Here are my questions for religious people.
1. Would you be able to enjoy Heaven knowing that people you love are tormented in Hell?

2. . How come so many times the all-knowing God doesn't seem to have a clue whats gonna happen and has to double check things?

3. How do you justify God punishing Adam and Eve for something the did before having any knowledge about good and evil?

4. What will happen in the Afterlife to the people who never heard about your religion?

5. How do you justify an infinite punishment for a finite crime? Especially from a loving God.

6. How can you have free will if God is omniscient? This means that he knows the decisions you will make, hence you don't really have free will.

7. How come you consider people to have free will considering some decisions lead to eternal torture? It's like saying you have the right to free speech, but if you say X, you will get your hand cut off. Sure, you have the right to free speech, right?

Actually if religion would be subject to the same proof standard as science, it would have been proven as false hence the Sun was "created" before the Earth and the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

Your argument excludes those of us to believe that God created evolution. And bear in mind that evolution is still a theory.

Also, there are Christians who understand that we were born with free will.

 

[ClayTrainor]

So you believe we likely came from apes?And bear in mind that evolution is still a theory.

Just bear in mind that gravity and aerodynamic lift are still theories as well...

Also, there are Christians who understand that we were born with free will.

And i love them, so long as they respect individual rights of Man :o

 

[TGGRV]

PaulaGem, subject your experiences through a peer review system, prove why things are like that and I have no problem with it being taught in schools.

Schools are meant to be sources of INFORMATION, not IDEOLOGY. They are supposed to develop CRITICAL thinking, not SUPPORTING IDEAS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A BOOK. It's simple as that and this is the reason why education is failing students world wide. Teachers in non-scientific fields are more ideologues than intellectuals.

Obviously, I have no problem with schools having a certain curricula, as long as they're not public funded. I'm against public education, but as long as there's here to stay, it needs to teach, not brainwash. Why shouldn't schools teach that the Earth is flat or whatever other bullshit theory you can find, considering they're supposed to present all points of view, even those proven false? Schools are meant to teach things that are PROVEN VALID/CORRECT, so mysticism has no place in schools. It is just like expecting churches, where mysticism is taught, to teach science/evolution. It is illogical.

 

[PaulaGem]

PaulaGem, subject your experiences through a peer review system, prove why things are like that and I have no problem with it being taught in schools.

Schools are meant to be sources of INFORMATION, not IDEOLOGY. They are supposed to develop CRITICAL thinking, not SUPPORTING IDEAS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A BOOK. It's simple as that and this is the reason why education is failing students world wide. Teachers in non-scientific fields are more ideologues than intellectuals.

Why would I want to teach my personal metaphysical experiences and beliefs in school? I have no aspirations to guru status. If I meet someone who denies that they exist, I object to that denial. If I meet someone who is trying to figure out how they relate to God, I share what I've figured out and hope it helps them. I have no desire to go any further.

Obviously, I have no problem with schools having a certain curricula, as long as they're not public funded. I'm against public education, but as long as there's here to stay, it needs to teach, not brainwash. Why shouldn't schools teach that the Earth is flat or whatever other bullshit theory you can find, considering they're supposed to present all points of view, even those proven false? Schools are meant to teach things that are PROVEN VALID/CORRECT, so mysticism has no place in schools. It is just like expecting churches, where mysticism is taught, to teach science/evolution. It is illogical.

I do believe that a course on comparative religions is not a bad thing. Religions are actually political and cultural entities. The mysticism part can not be taught, it may be modeled by another person and someone can learn from that model (Yeshua, Ghandi, Buddha, etc) but it can not be taught. Religionists themselves resort to myth and allegory when they try to teach the mystical because that is as close as they can get.

 

[angelatc]

I'm against public education, but as long as there's here to stay, it needs to teach, not brainwash.

It's a very fine line, you know.

Not giving a valedictorian a diploma because she thanks Jesus in her speech......that'll teach her.

 

[angelatc]

If their parents had a strong Spiritual presence this would not matter. What you are saying is not that the soul is weak, but that God can't make his presence known without Bibles in schools.

No, I would never presume to speak for God, or even on the subject of what He can and can't do'

Sorry, in science class you teach science - period.

Peachy, but where are the theology classes? It's ridiculous to teach the history of civilization without addressing religion, but that's exactly what the anti-religion sect demands.

Children get their sustenance from their parents. The influence of parents in children's lives is so strong that abused children usually won't "rat out" their parents, but they defend them in spite of prolonged abuse.

You're making my point. It's practically impossible to raise a child to have any spirituality in the environment the intolerant left has created. Unless you decide to become a zealot, possibly to the point of totally isolating your kid from society as a whole, a casual relationship with the church won't stand up to the onslaught of intolerence that the left has insisted is necessary, apparently in order to advance their agenda.

Three hours a day with parents seems like an underestimate, and you aren't allowing for weekends, but even so - I believe parents with a real Spiritual life will raise children who are open to the metaphysical.

Allowing a government and a society that is aggressively creating an atmosphere of intolerence for religion on public property to have your kids for 8 hours a day just doesn't serve the public good.

Look at these boards. The evolution crowd apparently can't sleep at night knowing there are religious people in the world. It eats them alive from the inside out. It's not something I ever encountered as a child - there were lots of atheists and agnostics, but they were never as aggressive and hostile as they are today.

In my life, I've known 3 people who were scientists. Professionals, with advanced college degrees, earning very high incomes wearing white lab coats in either academia or the corporate world . None of them were athiests. All of them went to church on Sunday. For that reason, I'm skeptical of the argument that the world of science simply can't tolerate religion, Christianity in particular.

Again, I'm not religious, but I think the aggressive push for secularity in favor of atheism is overblown at best, and pure evil at worst.

 

[TGGRV]

It's a very fine line, you know.

Not giving a valedictorian a diploma because she thanks Jesus in her speech......that'll teach her.

Actually I think that is moronic. There's a difference in between having a personal opinion and being free to believe in whatever you want and ideology taught as information in schools. She could have thanked cocaine abuse and gang bangs and I wouldn't have cared.

And secular things aren't bad. Religion has no place in government or policy, in the way that religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with neither.

Paula, there's a difference in between teaching comparative religion and teach the historical aspects of it, political and cultural implications of religion and so on because these are facts. And you can't teach political and cultural implications without relating to, for example, in the case of Islam the Hadith and Sirah and keep preaching that Islam is peace. Or you can't teach Christianity without teaching the implications of the Old Testament or the usage of religion as a judicial entity. There's a HUGE difference in between teaching this, and teaching that the world was created by a God and teach things that fly against all the information people have and pass it as knowledge and wisdom.

Oh, and I have no problem with agnostics. For example, even though I don't believe in God, I can't claim that God doesn't exist since there's no proof in either way. There's proof that evolution is true and this implies that everything against it is false. God may have created life through evolution. I can't claim that this can be false, but I can't believe in a deceiving God(among cruel, unjust and illogical) that would create everything like it is today and alter the DNA of species, the way they develop in-utero etc and scramble things under the surface of the Earth to bias the fossil record in order to induce people into error. lol.

 

[Deborah K]

Actually I think that is moronic. There's a difference in between having a personal opinion and being free to believe in whatever you want and ideology taught as information in schools. She could have thanked cocaine abuse and gang bangs and I wouldn't have cared.

And secular things aren't bad. Religion has no place in government or policy, in the way that religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with neither.
Paula, there's a difference in between teaching comparative religion and teach the historical aspects of it, political and cultural implications of religion and so on because these are facts. And you can't teach political and cultural implications without relating to, for example, in the case of Islam the Hadith and Sirah and keep preaching that Islam is peace. Or you can't teach Christianity without teaching the implications of the Old Testament or the usage of religion as a judicial entity. There's a HUGE difference in between teaching this, and teaching that the world was created by a God and teach things that fly against all the information people have and pass it as knowledge and wisdom.

Oh, and I have no problem with agnostics. For example, even though I don't believe in God, I can't claim that God doesn't exist since there's no proof in either way. There's proof that evolution is true and this implies that everything against it is false. God may have created life through evolution. I can't claim that this can be false, but I can't believe in a deceiving God(among cruel, unjust and illogical) that would create everything like it is today and alter the DNA of species, the way they develop in-utero etc and scramble things under the surface of the Earth to bias the fossil record in order to induce people into error. lol.

Yes, but you see, that's not how this country was founded. We were founded on religious principles. I would argue that since we have succumbed to the agenda of the progressives, which includes secular humanism, it has become our downfall and will result in our demise.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually I think that is moronic. There's a difference in between having a personal opinion and being free to believe in whatever you want and ideology taught as information in schools. She could have thanked cocaine abuse and gang bangs and I wouldn't have cared.

And secular things aren't bad. Religion has no place in government or policy, in the way that religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with neither.

Paula, there's a difference in between teaching comparative religion and teach the historical aspects of it, political and cultural implications of religion and so on because these are facts. And you can't teach political and cultural implications without relating to, for example, in the case of Islam the Hadith and Sirah and keep preaching that Islam is peace. Or you can't teach Christianity without teaching the implications of the Old Testament or the usage of religion as a judicial entity. There's a HUGE difference in between teaching this, and teaching that the world was created by a God and teach things that fly against all the information people have and pass it as knowledge and wisdom.

Oh, and I have no problem with agnostics. For example, even though I don't believe in God, I can't claim that God doesn't exist since there's no proof in either way. There's proof that evolution is true and this implies that everything against it is false. God may have created life through evolution. I can't claim that this can be false, but I can't believe in a deceiving God(among cruel, unjust and illogical) that would create everything like it is today and alter the DNA of species, the way they develop in-utero etc and scramble things under the surface of the Earth to bias the fossil record in order to induce people into error. lol.

There's no objective proof of evolution (it has not been observed). The evidence is purely speculative for now. (fossils, DNA, etc. are interesting, but the crucial steps of the scientific method, "observation" and "objective testing" are still not there yet) It remains an interesting proposition, but it's still just theory for the time being.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, but you see, that's not how this country was founded. We were founded on religious principles. I would argue that since we have succumbed to the agenda of the progressives, which includes secular humanism, it has become our downfall and will result in our demise.

I would argue that the founding principles are not religious, but they are existential and not "humanist". JMHO.

 

[Dr.3D]

Just bear in mind that gravity and aerodynamic lift are still theories as well...

And it falls flat when it comes to the Bumble Bee. They forget that the positive pressure below the wing has a play in the way a wing works. The theory tends to concentrate on the negative pressure over the wing.

They tend to forget there is greater pressure under the wing than there is in the ambient atmospheric pressure surrounding the bee.

 

[Deborah K]

I would argue that the founding principles are not religious, but they are existential and not "humanist". JMHO.

There was a study done by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts.

 

[georgiaboy]

interesting, D.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I would argue that the founding principles are not religious, but they are existential and not "humanist". JMHO.

+1

The principles of individual liberty are independent of religion and/or supernatural philosophy, despite how rampant human and American history is, with it.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Thomas Cooper, 1817