We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Will Christianity Die Out?
| 213 | 33663 |
So I was thinking a few day ago about all the religions that died out because they worshiped the sun, and I'm curious if you think Christianity will do the same due to its outdated beliefs (well to be exact Jesus is the sun, and Christianity also has roots in astronomy but whatever).
- 213 Replies
it's the responsibility of the one making the claim of its existence to show evidence.
Of course, but I think he means evidence for one making the specific positional claim that there is no God, the non-neutral standpoint.
(i.e. God doesn't exist)
First we'd need to establish a definition of "God" and a definition of "exist".
Can you prove a negative?
Technically, proof is for mathematical constructs. Outside of that, nothing is 100% proven one way or the other. Some things may intrinsically be true, such as calling the thing I'm typing on a "keyboard", but only because that's the label we chose to put on it.
To an extent, depending on how the thing is defined, certain traits, claims of actions, etc, we can determine a truth value of claims to a high or low degree of certainty based on the evidence presented. For example, if someone said a visible, physical, hairy, loud, tall, pink, ox-like beast that enjoys eating chocolate cake lived in their closet, each of those individual traits are testable to some degree. We could visually look for it, record sound in the area, use sound-detection like bats do to 'see' things, search for heat sources, search for hair or other forms of genetic data, look for footprints or waste or damage (like if the beast is tall, a high shelf might be severely dented), leave a piece of chocolate cake nearby and see what happens to it, etc.
With a transcendent creator God who supposedly created things with His voice in a certain order that was listed in an ancient book that He inspired, we can see how individual claims match up with our present understanding of how and why things are the way they are. For example, Genesis starts off with a watery earth existing prior to stars. This doesn't follow our current understanding of how planetary formation occurs. Based on the current evidence, the literal model would have a very low truth value until evidence arises to support it. And even if the claim of a watery earth existing before any stars is shown to be correct, it does not support the truth value of other claims. The existence of New York doesn't demonstrate Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, etc.
There are also logical arguments against specific trait claims, like the problem of evil.
[quote] Also why do you criticize what I believe?
What makes you think your beliefs should be shielded from criticism?[/quote]
i would really like to hear your answer on this thugtastic.
Can you prove a negative? (i.e. God doesn't exist)
it's up to those that make the positive claim to bring proof for this claim.
if they can't bring proof for there claim then there is no reason to believe this claim is true.
it's not up to us to disproof god. it's up to you to proof god in the 1st place.
How dare you pull this crap. Get out of this thread.
How dare you tell someone to get out of a public thread?
It's a much better path for one who wants to be closer to their own ancestors etc.
I don't understand your religion.
another 1 walking out the door whit their ears and eye's plugged.
at this rate we get those 1 billion silent in just a few year.
good job guy's. up to the next. =P
So, you purposely create conflict, prejudice, and ignorance, and then use that as a reason to invalidate their religion?
You're saying that like you're calling Christians ignorant. I mean if Christianity's right then all the Christians will go to heaven, an the rest to hell. If Atheists are right, then well, nothing.
If the Atheists are right, no-one will exist.
Word.
Pascal's Wager again? Seriously?
What, you don't like when logic is used against you?
Ancient Egyptians are hardly impressed, and Mayans think you're cute.
The Mayans and the Egyptian religions died out centuries ago. Christianity is still here, en masse.
if the jews are right, you go to hell.
if the islam is right, you go to hell.
if buddhism is right, you go to hell.
if nordic mythology is right, you go to hell.
if the mayans were right, you go to hell.
if scientology is right, you go to hell.
Lmao.
(if the atheists are right, then no1 will go to hell.)
If they are right, no-one will exist.
islam currently has more followers.
The exact number of Christians and Muslims is debateable.
But most estimates put the number at.
Christians: 2,100,000,000
Muslims: 1,200,000,000
The growth rate for them is:
Christians: 2.6% yearly
Muslims: 4.5% yearly
33% Christians and about 21% Muslim
And contrary to popular belief, numbers wise the fastest growing religion is actually a dead heat. Where the Muslim percentage is obiously higher, but both religions are both attracting the same amount of followers.
Although a high percentage of Muslims are converts, the majority are the result of the high birth rate, usually accomodated with 3rd world countries.
About 1/2 of Christians are converts. Mainly in Africa where the charismetis movement is just exploding, due mainly to the influx of missionaries.
The main places where Christianity is growing the fastest is actually in Africa. The African Christian community is the fastest growing on earth. In 1900 there was only about 9,000,000 Christians, now there's at least 380,000,000.
And I personally think that the center of Christianity will be remove from Europe to Africa and the Americas.
Christianity is also the fastest growing religion in China.
Although the government denies it, many believe that there are underground Christian movements. Kinda like the Roman Empire.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe and is fastly growing among India and the S.E. Asian countries. The traditionally Christian Europe is having relatively large Islamic sects, especially in France.
Am I to expect harassment now because I actually believe in more than just science?
No, because no-one really takes paganism seriously. They're a novelty or a hobby.
We aren't criticizing what you believe (in this thread), but rather, your reasons for believing.
I'd be interested in hearing the difference.
As for why we criticize religion in general (not just yours), that is because religion is a major source of the most heinous things plaguing our world today. Intolerance, ignorance, mutilation, war, sexism, homophobia, terrorism, indoctrination, extortion, corruption and more. I'm not saying that everyone who is religion is these, but that religion as a whole has been a blot on humanity since it became institutionalized in any instance.
I BEG to differ. Altruism is the basis for all those things, not religion. But on a more serious note, seriously? Blame all that is evil on religion? Religion is faith, faith is hope, and hope is what gets people through adversity. Not cold, emotionaless science. We're humans, after all, not machines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'd like to insert something that needs to be said in this thread at least once.
Atheists, Christians, Pagan unicorns... CHILL. Just ****ing chill. Atheists. You're supposed to be the intelligent, logical ones. Stop having ***** slapping fights with everyone else. Christians. Quit your hypocritical bull****. War happens. We all have to fight for something, sooner or later. Don't be passive pansies no-one respects. Then again, don't be headhunters. Christians shouldn't convince people that their religion is better, or true. Christians are, by rite, supposed to convert by example. You're supposed to be the loving, understanding ones. And Pagans... Carry on. I have NO idea what you guys are all about.
What, you don't like when logic is used against you?
Pascal's Wager is not logic. It's a fallacious supposition that there are only two possible outcomes: Christianity being right, or nothing being true. It does not take into account the tens of thousands of variations within itself, not to mention the thousands of other distinct religions that all claim separate things when it comes to the afterlife.
It's a false dichotomy logical fallacy, the exact opposite of logical reasoning.
The Mayans and the Egyptian religions died out centuries ago. Christianity is still here, en masse.
Argumentum ad populum and begging the question.
If they are right, no-one will exist.
Atheists don't believe nothing exists. All atheism means is a lack of a belief in a god. Being an atheist does not preclude belief in some type of afterlife, reincarnation, or universal integration.
I'd be interested in hearing the difference.
The difference is, one is having an open mind, the other is critical analysis.
We argue about religion because of how much stock people put in it, yet, no one can provide any evidence for it. Religion praises faith, which is literally believing something without having a reason to.
Altruism is the basis for all those things, not religion.
I think you have the wrong word. Altruism is: "The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others."
Blame all that is evil on religion?
No, I'm not saying all evil stems from religion. I am saying, however, that fervent, extreme beliefs without logical basis that assert warped moral codes and edicts are a large source of evil.
Religion is faith, faith is hope, and hope is what gets people through adversity.
Hard work and persistence get people through adversity.
If people only hoped, everyone would starve. You can pray for all those starving children in Africa, but you aren't helping them. The people who actually get up and do something instead of 'hoping' for something to change or for someone to help them are how adversity is conquered.
What I don't understand is why faith is valued.
There is one huge problem I have with this thread:
I'm curious if you think Christianity will do the same due to its outdated beliefs (well to be exact Jesus is the sun, and Christianity also has roots in astronomy but whatever).
This is absolutely false.
Jesus is the son of God (not sun).
Christianity may be said to have it's roots in Judaism but not astronomy what so ever. Astronomical events may dictate the celebration of certain events of Christians (Easter is celebrated the Sunday after the first full moon that occurs after the March equinox) , but those events rarely have anything to do with astronomy. Astronomy may be part of certain events (The Star of Bethlehem) but this is not anywhere near the central focus of the event itself.
From wikipedia:
Christianity:
Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: ΧÏιÏÏιανÏÏ Christianos and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.
As for Christianity dying out, even the Bible says this:
Luke 18:8
However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
Just going on that passage alone, I would say it indicates not necessarily that Christianity would die out by the end of the world, but that those who call themselves Christians may not truly practice their faith and therefore have none left. (Although this doesn't clear up any speculation to the question at hand and I suppose this passage would more (or only) impact the views of other Christians as opposed to any other religions or any other non-religious.)
Gee, crazyape, I think you just went full retard with your post.
The Mayans and the Egyptian religions died out centuries ago. Christianity is still here, en masse.
Mayans still practice similar cults today, though. And the point was not when did they die out, but how long they survived.
Pascal's Wager is not logic. It's a fallacious supposition that there are only two possible outcomes: Christianity being right, or nothing being true. It does not take into account the tens of thousands of variations within itself, not to mention the thousands of other distinct religions that all claim separate things when it comes to the afterlife.
You could say it is logic within the thought experiment's presets; the only problem is that those presets are as far away from reality as they can get.
Hard work and persistence get people through adversity.
Along with Athena, move also your hand (Greek proverb)
or
Trust in God But Tie Your Camel (Arab proverb)
or
God helps those who help themselves (popular motto)
What I don't understand is why faith is valued.
It is seen as the "right path". What I don't understand is why faith alone is valued.
Jesus is the son of God (not sun).
I don't have my resources on hand right now but there have been suggestions of an astrological link between the myth. Even in the Bible it makes astrological reference of Jesus being the morning star (Lucifer).
Just going on that passage alone, I would say it indicates not necessarily that Christianity would die out by the end of the world, but that those who call themselves Christians may not truly practice their faith and therefore have none left. (Although this doesn't clear up any speculation to the question at hand and I suppose this passage would more (or only) impact the views of other Christians as opposed to any other religions or any other non-religious.)
If no one is practicing the religion that is what we would call a dead religion. The religious text of that religion saying it won't die out means only two things, jack and squat.
If no one is practicing the religion that is what we would call a dead religion. The religious text of that religion saying it won't die out means only two things, jack and squat.
I was saying that even the text of the religion itself indicates that it may actually die out or at least, that those that say they are followers won't even have faith (in a different sense will have "died out".) . In parenthesis I was trying to indicate that for someone who does not practice said religious view probably won't take the text as much a source for evidence or even take it as evidence at all.
Even in the Bible it makes astrological reference of Jesus being the morning star (Lucifer).
There seems to be two references, both in revelation (2:28 and 22:16).
Within the context of the religion it's not stating that equivalency. Morning star meaning bringer of light. Jesus isn't Lucifer and Lucifer before his fall is not an evil being (again within the context of the religion). It would appear more as they are stating Jesus brings them light and nothing more.
It seems even a further stretch to call it worship of the sun. It would be strange to take that translation so literally. As if Jesus were actually a star. Jesus is also referred to as The Lamb of God. But it is made clear within the articles of the religion itself that He is not actually a lamb.
But even further problems arise as Christianity now basically an umbrella term, with so many different groups (Lutheran, Angelical, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) Some with lesser differences in beliefs some with differences varying greatly. I would not be surprised if there were a group of people saying they are "Christian" and then drawing parallels to astrology.
In parenthesis I was trying to indicate that for someone who does not practice said religious view probably won't take the text as much a source for evidence or even take it as evidence at all.
I'm not trying to say what religion or not religion people or the forums are I'm just saying it seems or likely that a Christian would find the text as more an indicator of their own religion's status than a non-Christian or non-Religious would take it (if they would even use it as an indicator at all).
It would be strange to take that translation so literally.
Isn't that most of the Book? What parts aren't strange to take literally and how does one accurately pick and choose?
Isn't that most of the Book? What parts aren't strange to take literally and how does one accurately pick and choose?
Most of it would be strange to take literally.
The Bible is a compilation of books. The easiest distinction to be made from the Old Testament and the New Testament. Obviously the Jews had the Old Testament far before the New Testament even existed. But each book for the most part, I believe, has a different author. So, the writing styles of many of the books vary to a certain degree. Also, the Old Testament was written long before the New Testament meaning writing styles had much time to change from the writings of the first books of the Old Testament.
I've heard that Revelation is mostly metaphorical (or allegorical, I can't remember for certain). But this is one of those things were the different Christian groups have different views on the book. I think some groups take it more literally while others take more as allegory and symbolism with very little of it being literal.
I have also heard that Revaluation heavily references many other books of the Bible, thus making it's meaning less clear for those who are not well versed in the entire Bible.
(I can try to dig up the source were I heard it, but it was pretty long ago :\\ )
From Wikipedia:
Revelation:
The book spans three literary genres: epistolary, apocalyptic, and prophetic. It begins with an epistolary address to the reader followed by an apocalyptic description of a complex series of events derived from prophetic visions which the author claims to have seen. These include the appearance of a number of figures and images which have become important in Christian eschatology, such as the ***** of Babylon and the Beast, and culminate in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The obscure and extravagant imagery has led to a wide variety of interpretations: historicist interpretations see in Revelation a broad view of history; preterist interpretations treat Revelation as mostly referring to the events of the apostolic era (1st century), orâ"at the latestâ"the fall of the Roman Empire; futurists believe that Revelation describes future events; and idealist or symbolic interpretations consider that Revelation does not refer to actual people or events, but is an allegory of the spiritual path and the ongoing struggle between good and evil.
I tried to highlight the areas in the Wikipedia passage that lend to the fact that the book has wide breadth and variety of interpretation.
I think we can all come a consensus and agree without a doubt, that Christianity will eventually die out over time. Like how modern Christmas is already being slowly diluted to being more of, suddenly there are sales everywhere.
So, you purposely create conflict, prejudice, and ignorance, and then use that as a reason to invalidate their religion?
hmmmmm. no.
If the Atheists are right, no-one will exist.
that should be on a tile above the fireplace. what a great joke.
If they are right, no-one will exist.
oke, you scare me now. is this really your logic? or just a troll action?
33% Christians and about 21% Muslim
the amount of followers doesn't say anything about how right they are.
once 100% of the population thought that the earth was flat.
turns out that 100% of the population was 100% wrong
Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe and is fastly growing among India and the S.E. Asian countries. The traditionally Christian Europe is having relatively large Islamic sects, especially in France.
in france the extremist sects are more active then in other countries. but it's not larger.
also is the fastest growing religion in (west-)europe not a religion. it's atheism.
Atheists. You're supposed to be the intelligent, logical ones. Stop having ***** slapping fights with everyone else.
atheists are usualy on a friendly not whit buddhism/hinduism.
they are not whit the religions that indoctrinate people (mostly children) and glorify their believe above the others.
It would be strange to take that translation so literally.
why does god write in riddles?
the book is supposed to be proof for the religion. right?
i dont think christianity will die out because right now i think its the worlds most populated religion and even though you guys think that if might not but you guys are saying somthing with sense as nowadays people barely go to church to pray anymore so yeah theres a good chance BTW im not a christian so im not taking anybodys side
why does god write in riddles?
the book is supposed to be proof for the religion. right?
None of the books in the Bible were written by God. I don't think Revelation was written to prove that Christianity exists. It was probably written for Christians to understand some aspect of their religion.
It may seem like a riddle, but again I've heard that Revelation heavily references many other books of the Bible (But, unfortunately I can't remember this for certain :\\ ). So, unless you know the Bible well, probably also a good deal of history or some other knowledge base, then it is a rather difficult read.
But, I just wanted to state, early, two things,
1.) I would never equate Christianity to an astrological type religion or one that worships the sun.
2.) It's, for lack of a better term, interesting (or funny, but not haha funny) that even the Bible would speculate that Christianity, in a sense, would possibly die out (If that was the meaning of said passage.)
You must be logged in to post a reply!