I wonder how atheists can explain the decline of faith in God in recent decades?

I wonder how atheists can explain the decline of faith in God in recent decades? Of course the typical retort is that it has been the result of scientific discoveries, but that's pretty weak considering it's not actually a scientific issue at all and there is no way to conclusively demonstrate the non-existence of God with science. A method used to understand the material world simply has no relevance on the topic of whether there is or is not a transcendent reality. So why atheism? Surely theism should be at least an equally valid viewpoint, given the lack of hard evidence for atheism.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because theism became associated with low IQ and low status. Many people wanted to disassociate with fundamentalism and "schizo" branches like Pentecostalism.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Stupid answer.
      Some people just need to be told how to behave with no explanation because they are monkeys.
      Those that do not fall for Christianity anymore but we're supposed to, are just captivated by other idiotic things such as BLM, LGBT, cults etc.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        "Everything I don't like is a religion" has got to be the dumbest and laziest take on modernity on Oyish. Political ideologies, social ideologies, fads hobbies, etc. All religions. No one has destroyed the definition of the word religion more than Christians themselves.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A method used to understand the material world simply has no relevance on the topic of whether there is or is not a transcendent reality.
    This is cope.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Refute it.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You only have to keep reality and your religion separate because your religion isn’t real. The Bible would confirm to rigorously investigated reality if it were true.
        Not him but it’s obvious.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I am still waiting on a scientific discovery with which the Bible cannot possibly get along with. The idea that science somehow refutes Christianity is blatantly wrong.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity is infinitely malleable
            It's not like you can prevent Christians from changing their positions, how to interpret the Bible, etc
            They can do this endlessly

            Stuff like evolution was almost universally met with resistance from Christians, precisely because it was problematic
            Now it's largely(?) accepted

            I don't know how you square stuff like that away, without realizing Christians are huffing copium.
            Pretend it didn't happen?
            Throw the past Christians under the buss, and say they were moronic, had the wrong views and were mistaken about how to read the Bible?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Throw the past Christians under the buss, and say they were moronic,
            that doesn't just apply to christians, but scientists as well
            >muh evolution
            I assume we're talking macro-evolution here. the "evidence" for that is at least as malleable as christian ideas. it might work as a paradigm, but it is yet to be proven.
            >christians are huffing copium
            the other side can say the masses are huffing copium, wanting "anything but God".

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I assume we're talking macro-evolution here
            Evolution is both micro and macro, there is no real distinction, it’s the same exact process over different time scales

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            thank you for letting us know you don't know anything about evolution
            next please

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's the supposed mechanism that stops animals from evolving "too much"
            Like seriously, what's the theory here?

            You got none.
            This is so silly.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but what about the scientists, they are just as bad as us...
            HOLY MOLEY, dude...
            I want you to reflect on why you write defensive whataboutism like this.
            Science is a method. It's not (suppose to be) dogmatic. Maybe the scientists at the time had good reasons to object to the new theory.

            Just don't get how this helps your case. Science is about learning stuff about the natural world, updating old knowledge.
            Religion is not like that, new revelations are (usually) not a thing, the canon is closed.
            You wouldn't want to say scripture is so confusing people read it wrong for 2000 years, either.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Religious people are less intelligent on average and phenotypic IQ went up over the last few decades, although nobody is sure why.

    I think it's mostly due to reduced mortality and high living standards. Religion is cope and there's less to cope about.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      That might be true but dumb people breed more and most secular couples would rather own a cat than take care of a child. Sorry I don’t make the rules here. I’m a theist just pointing out that fact.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    In recent years with the help of the internet there has been reservoirs of information sharing around philosophy and religion, including how religions started etc.

    Its not commonly known but historians and philosophers have been increasingly aware since the 1900s that the abrahamic religions are a collection of pre-existing concepts bleeding into the religions.

    Plato and the Greeks and their religious meanderings basically set the stone for a religion like christianity to come into being.

    The monk scholars of the 1200s etc just coped with "Uhh God set the Greeks and Egyptian philosophers on the path to discovering Jesus through breadcrumbs and..."

    Anyone living in the 21st century who knows their shit knows that argument is pure cope. The modern century has exposed the ancient religions and disassembled their parts showing them to be fraudulent israeli fables

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but that's pretty weak considering it's not actually a scientific issue at all
    It is actually. The Bible makes many claims that have been proven wrong through scientific exploration, and science has provided us with a different meta-narrative that cannot be reconciled with the Bible in an honest and reasonable manner
    We evolved from chimp like apes along with all life for 4 billion years. Christianity refuted

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You only pre-suppose the Bible is infallible because it’s wrong. If science later proved genesis was true you would have a point and wouldn’t need to start with the assumption that it’s infallible.

      You wouldn’t need to separate science and Christianity with because they would gel just fine if Christianity were true.
      Rigorous investigation of reality would confirm Christianity, not refute it. Sorry.

      Science can't disprove the Bible. It can disprove a strawman of the Bible.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        By straw man do you mean your fake version of the Bible where it *doesn’t* say the earth all living things, the stars sun and moon were created in 6 days, with the plants being created before the sun moon and stars with humans being created separately from all other living things from a single breeding pair?
        Because the actual Bible does say that.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >make an incorrect interpretation of Genesis
          >claim to have refuted the Bible
          Many such cases.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s what it says anon, sorry.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >incorrect interpretation
            By what standard?

            By the standards of the meaning the audience it was written for was supposed to understand the text.
            It was not meant to be a scientific textbook about the creation of the Earth, which you read literally.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You got an incorrect interpretation of Genesis

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Scientific textbook? Anon it’s not that they didn’t try to explain how old the earth is, how long it took and in what order, it’s that they gave the WRONG answers like every other myth in the world.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. It's not this kind of book.

            >The literalist position has not been mainstream for thousands of years...
            I was literally taught genesis in CCD in 1999, evolution was never taught, nor were any of the correct answers.
            Regardless, Christians still believe in a literal interpretation, there are tons on this very forum

            Why would the Catechism teach about evolution?
            The Catechism should be about theological issues, not biology or physics.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. It's not this kind of book.
            It had to be taken literally for centuries because the church said so. Now I have the option to don't give a shit about it at all and not just "take it not literally".

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            One of the earliest Church Fathers wrote about reading the Old Testament figuratively.

            >theological issues, not biology or physics.
            Biology and physics becomes theological issues if you have the Bible as part of your theology, and believe the Bible to be making claims about the natural world, such as about biology and physics

            The Bible should not be read as a scientific textbook anon. Did you really took Catechism classes or are you just buffling?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thats good for him. Then the church started to burn people for seeing it differently. Then came the secularisation, now nobody cares. Today the book of Genesis has about as much relevancy or not like the Inuit creation epic or something from Greek mythology. Most people have never read it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What? No, it didn't.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >theological issues, not biology or physics.
            Biology and physics becomes theological issues if you have the Bible as part of your theology, and believe the Bible to be making claims about the natural world, such as about biology and physics

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >incorrect interpretation
            By what standard?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        By the standards of the meaning the audience it was written for was supposed to understand the text.
        It was not meant to be a scientific textbook about the creation of the Earth, which you read literally.

        If scientists discovered that evidence supported there actually being a 6-day creation event (like in the literal reading of Genesis)
        Would that be evidence against Christianity being true?
        OF COURSE NOT
        You're ridiculous

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you using drugs? I don't think you understood the point.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What was your point?

            My point was that you pick this position, because you've been backed into a corner where the literalist position is untennable.

            If the literalist position turned out to be tenable in the future, you're committed to rejecting it.
            Or, revise your claim about how to interpret Genesis.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The literalist position has not been mainstream for thousands of years... It is a position by some evangelicals only.
            There is a reason why Catholics have Bishops who study the context of the Bible rather than having everyone reading it literally.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, I agree.
            I too, believe a lot of the stuff in the Bible literally didn't happen.

            What do you think Catholics Bishops would do in the case of my hypothetical?
            (If scientists discovered that evidence supported there actually being a 6-day creation event, like in the literal reading of Genesis)

            Would they revise their beliefs about how to interpret the Bible?
            Or would they view this as evidence against Christianity?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think this would shock the Catholic faith. For scientific issue, we basically have a neutral position.

            "Are scientists right? Ok"
            "Did it turn out literalists were right? Ok"

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think evidence for a 6-day creation event would be a HUGE deal.

            Otherwise, you seem to agree with me.
            That in the case of disconformatory evidence, in this case about the intended interpretation of Genesis, it doesn't really matter.
            Because people would rather just change their position about that 1 belief. Rather than have it count as evidence against their religious belief as a whole.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the literalists are right and there was a 6 days creation this doesn't mean the figurative interpretation is not important.

            The figurative interpretation is the important one in theology.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The literalist position has not been mainstream for thousands of years...
            I was literally taught genesis in CCD in 1999, evolution was never taught, nor were any of the correct answers.
            Regardless, Christians still believe in a literal interpretation, there are tons on this very forum

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The rise of godlessness means the end times are near. Jesus returning in two more weeks. Those atheists won't be so wienery once they get smited.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally no replies relevant to anything I said. I point out that atheists have a faith of their own and they respond with snark or attempts to redirect the conversation.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Bible being full of claims that science refuted is very relevant. The fact that you can’t prove prayer works is also very relevant.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Scriptures are infallible and you could figure out how effective prayer is yourself, if only you had the faith to do so. But in an effort to keep the thread focused I have chosen to ignore these points. No, they aren't relevant. I'm still waiting for an answer as to why atheists aren't at least curious about some form of theism, even just deism, since they have yet to seriously argue for or put any evidence forward for their view.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You only pre-suppose the Bible is infallible because it’s wrong. If science later proved genesis was true you would have a point and wouldn’t need to start with the assumption that it’s infallible.

          You wouldn’t need to separate science and Christianity with because they would gel just fine if Christianity were true.
          Rigorous investigation of reality would confirm Christianity, not refute it. Sorry.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Go make your own thread if you want to talk about the Bible. I'm staying on-topic here.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Go make your own thread if you want to talk about the Bible. I'm staying on-topic here.

          thread just started and op's already been btfo and coping hard
          not a good start, lil guy

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think

      Because theism became associated with low IQ and low status. Many people wanted to disassociate with fundamentalism and "schizo" branches like Pentecostalism.

      has the right angle.
      Ideas become popular/unpopular due to their status, not correctness.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sure but that's not really a particularly flattering answer for atheism, which presumes itself to be the flagship of reason. I assumed one of them would at least try to grapple with the issue.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you have to follow my script of atheism being a religion
      No

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not worthy of being called a religion. Nevertheless, I have not received a proper response yet. If it's so easy to demonstrate that atheism isn't a leap of faith, it would be great if someone could tell me why.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not following your script,sorry

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            lol most real replies in these kinds of threads. It's all so tiresome isn't it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mindbroken.

            >There is no logical reason to assume theism is untrue, or even unlikely.
            Do you think this is true for all unfalsifiable claims, or is there something special about theism?

            That sentence equally applies to atheism of course. But I'm only using the logic of atheists against them, of course I don't actually believe in it myself. I have no shame in admitting I take the existence of God as a given and nothing could possibly dissuade me from that belief.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. Just like you, Atheists do in fact not believe that all unfalsifiable claims are true.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If this were true, then there would be hard scientific evidence demonstrating the non-existence of God. In reality there is no evidence that this is even possible to attempt.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >then there would be hard scientific evidence demonstrating the non-existence of God
            Ok, but we both agree there is no such thing.
            And atheists do not believe all unfalsifiable claims to be true.

            So... You want to walk back on your nonsense?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. Just like you, Atheists do in fact not believe that all unfalsifiable claims are true.

            I'm not that anon and I don't get your point.
            Both atheists and theists believe in some, but not all unfalsifiable statements.

            Mostly because it would be impossible to live believing solely in falsifiable statements and because some unfalsifiable testaments directly contradict others (such as "there is a divine" and "there is no divine")

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have no idea what you think you're getting at. When you said "wrong" here

            Wrong. Just like you, Atheists do in fact not believe that all unfalsifiable claims are true.

            were you implying that my previous statement would not equally apply to atheism? Let's read it that way then.
            >There is no logical reason to assume atheism is untrue, or even unlikely.
            How do you profit by assuming this isn't true? 90IQ morons are really good at shitting up a thread. I'm sure atheists do not believe all unfalsifiable claims are true, wow, big revelation.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm sure atheists do not believe all unfalsifiable claims are true, wow, big revelation.
            Good. I thought you were saying something else.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >using the logic of atheists against them
            I don't follow
            What's the logic you are referring to here? Specifically, what beliefs do atheists hold that commits them to this

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dogmatic thinking, same thing that commands them to think am the center of my known universe when is not as much as so, they would be better believing the sun is

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >same thing that commands them to think am the center of my known universe when is not as much as so
            What did he mean with this?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Be specific!
            What beliefs do atheist hold that entails whatever the point of your previous post was

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Same, I have no shame in admitting I take the non-existence of God as a given and nothing could possibly dissuade me from that belief.

            Now, what do we do? Agree to disagree?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, you are right. All worldviews rests on unprovable axioms.
          Atheists are just as bad as theists. They both got faith.

          See? No need to feel bad about having faith in stuff. People can believe whatever the frick they want.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            But the problem is that no one would have faith in atheism if it was presented as faith, hence why they constantly lie about it. Most of them stumble blindly into it without even thinking, and only become militant atheists when they're too deep in the pit to realize they're even there.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's awful. How do we go about informing atheists that their worldview got axioms at the bottom?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      "Atheism is just a different religion where you have faith in nothing" is one of the oldest and saddest boomer cooes and we've all heard it a million times so don't act surprised that no one is interested in beating that dead horse. You're not here to have an honest discussion and we can all tell.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Atheism is a position regarding a claim "God exist", that the claim is false
      What faith is entailed by that?

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christcucks cant grasp you need to enforce religion to keep it running.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Some generations believe - others don't.
    It depends on how they're seeded.
    It depends on their peers.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Simple reason, religion doesn't make sense and has no use anymore. Thats why it is declining.

      Religion is not in decline in general
      Only amongst educated intelligent people
      Islam is steady since muslim areas are still shitty

      Alright, clearly I overestimated this board. I used the first question to set up my point, it isn't actually my point, yet clearly 90% of posters don't read any farther than that.
      >Only amongst educated intelligent people
      There were also educated, intelligent people in the past and recent scientific discoveries cannot refute their theism. Hence my point.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty impressive what we can do with surprisingly little when we put our minds to it.
        Imagine what has already been done.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Although I don't believe there is life in what we devise. You can't create machines of light with electrons.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Electrons....
            Mass...
            Heat.....
            Density!

            We be so dense.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I should really lighten up.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >recent scientific discoveries cannot refute their theism
        Obviously, theism is unfalsifiable

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Again, so is atheism. There can be no further debate until atheists stop LARPing as agnostics. There is no logical reason to assume theism is untrue, or even unlikely.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no logical reason to assume theism is untrue, or even unlikely.
            Do you think this is true for all unfalsifiable claims, or is there something special about theism?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        again, simple answer, most people don't give a shit about either religion or theism, because the make no sense. Hence the ever growing atheist majority in the developed world and your growing desperation.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        educated intelligent people in the past very often questioned god or held heterodox views about religion and got in trouble.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Simple reason, religion doesn't make sense and has no use anymore. Thats why it is declining.

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Religion is not in decline in general
    Only amongst educated intelligent people
    Islam is steady since muslim areas are still shitty

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    the world is getting more hedonistic and people are turning to pleasure-seeking more.
    the only way of doing so, and a consequence of that, is them hating and slandering Christianity, since it exposes their errors.

    that's why all of idpol wants it destroyed, so there's no one showing them wrong.

    in this thread alone there are examples
    >saying academia is more aware of Christianity's "origins"
    while using stupid points like the notion that philosophy is its inspiration, when it's the other way around.
    if anyone actually read the greeks, they'd get it.
    truth is the same, and is exactly as the "cope" goes: they, through reason alone, got pretty close to knowing God. He just revealed Himself later.

    in short, it's people not wanting God because He goes against their desires, lusts, and vices.

    >verification not required

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      to put the philosophy point clearer; truth is the same thing.
      they just caught glimpses of it with reason (and might've even been blessed for that in way themselves), while later we received revelation.
      >what about salvation
      God will judge them according to their circumstances. a man who never heard of Him will not be accused of a lack of knowledge of God. that would not be fair, and God judges with perfect justice.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the world is getting more hedonistic and people are turning to pleasure-seeking more
      This is the polar opposite of truth. There are stats on how zoomers are extremely timid and half of them have never asked a girl out. People are having less sex than ever, have less friends than ever, go out less than ever before, etc.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it isn't, it's not less hedonistic just because they're staying inside and jacking off to AI-generated troony porn instead of having one-night stands with bar bawds

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          How are people turning to pleasure-seeking if they live like cloistered monks? People do watch porn, but it's absurd to claim porn is the sole reason for why religion is dying

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >monks: seclude themselves from society to actively pursue a life of self-denial for religious reasons
            >modern shutins: seclude themselves from society because video games, social media and porn are lower effort routes to dopamine than active socialisation
            Yeah it's basically the same social trend

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You could say people are becoming NEETs and incels out of hedonism because having a job and asking a girl out is too stressful/painful to bother with, but humans were always driven by hedonism. Even in the highly religious Middle Ages people git drunk and fricked a lot. So this doesn't explain recent secularization

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Regardless, how does that disprove religion? Because how I see it, how is either or a virtue onto itself? You could have a highly hedonist society or one that is marked by cowardice, neither are actually teleologically desirable. The answer lies in the mean, as Aristotle claimed.

        belief in a god is a sign of weakness

        I remember when I was 16 years old, yes.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a matter of simplicity. Believing in metaphysics, and with them most scholarly reasons for believing in God, is assuming the existence of things that can't be confirmed, falsified or observed at all.
    Why would one do that?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because those are important questions.
      Falsifiability doesn't mean unfalsifiable subjects are not important or shouldn't be studied. It just delimits what is science or not for Popper.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't follow, anon. I agree that they're important, but how do you go from acknowledging this to assuming you have the undisputable truth, when it's impossible to confirm whether said truth even exists? How is that any more logical than believing in what can be observed and that which affects observable things?
        It just seems rash to me.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Both "there is a divine" and "there is no divine" are assumptions that demand a kind of faith. None is more logical than others.

          (By the way, I personally have witnessed some things that make me a believer, but this is beyond the topic.)

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christianity hinges on it being true that some guy walked on water 2000 years ago, but scientist have recently discovered that humans sink, if they step onto water
    This has left Christianity in dire straits

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      No it hinges on altruistic reasoning, a person who doesnt care about helping others will never accept Christianity

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it hinges on believing in miracles, a person who doesn't believe in miracles will never accept Christianity

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          There have been people who witnessed miracles, agreed that there was no explanation of what they have witnessed who continued being atheists.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what?
            You can't be a Christian without accepting there being such a thing as miracles.

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it's not actually a scientific issue at all and there is no way to conclusively demonstrate the non-existence of God with science
    You're dead wrong. Believing in the Christian god isn't deism. Believing in the Christian god implies believing that:
    >God exists
    >God created the universe ~6000 years ago in 6 days in the order described in Genesis
    >snakes and donkeys can talk
    >the flood happened
    >the day/night cycle once stopped
    >God responds to prayers
    >people believing in God are rewarded with all kinds of blessings
    >people not believing in God are cursed in all kinds of ways
    >Jesus resurrected
    >Jesus will come back within his apostles' lifetime and establish a global kingdom of God

    So what does science tell us?
    >the universe started 13.7 billion years ago, and the sun is older than plants
    >snakes and donkeys can't talk
    >not a single people on Earth ever wrote about the day/night cycle stopping around the time the Bible alleges it to
    >prayers don't work and in some cases can make your odds of recovering from disease WORSE
    >the most Christian continent is ridden with poverty, warlords and HIV
    >the most secular continents have the highest life expectancy and technological advancement
    >there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus resurrected
    >it's 2023, and we are not living in a global kingdom of God

    God is 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt, refutable empirically.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Okay, then where is the empirical refutation of God in your post?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nice cope.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, you are reading the Bible wrong...
      Let's not even go for the issue of literalism about the Old Testament.

      Followers of Jesus are not promised riches and treasures on their life on Earth. Of the Apostles, only one of them didn't die a violent death while being persecuted. And even the one who died of natural causes was tortured and boiled in oil.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Of the Apostles, only one of them didn't die a violent death while being persecuted.
        Yes. That's a pretty good sign the prophecy of the second coming was WRONG, meaning not from an omniscient god.

        I assume you have been writing these posts [...] [...] and are upset that I'm ignoring them for people who can actually debate.

        >I'm ignoring them because I'm a pussy who asks for empirical evidence after being presented with an abundance of it to feel smug.
        BROOOO LMFAO

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >prophecy of the second coming
          You don't want to fall in this rabbit hole, atheist anon...

          Then it isn't really the case that they "are not persuaded by the very large amount of data showing that in fact, family matters."
          They disagree about how to interpret that data. They don't think the data shows that family matters.

          Right, that just means it's a hard question to answer. Not that it's it's unfalsifiable

          In practice, it is unfalsifiable.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In practice, it is unfalsifiable.
            You could say this about any position, if you have people unwilling to change their mind

            The reason I'm giving you this much pushback, is because I thought you didn't know how the word 'unfalsifiable' is used.
            Seems like you do, and just picked a false example and are being stubborn about it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            religion is unfalsifiable, science isn't.
            that simple enough for you?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You really can't admit having been wrong
            wow

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            not even the same guy, just tired of your pseudo arguments shitting up the discussion.
            Back to topic, why shouldn't religiosity not be going down? It was a forced meme, now the forcing is gone and the meme is dying.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for butting in with a false explanation, thread needed more mistakes

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everything I don't like is a mistake!
            >stop not believing in my religion!
            yeah, no. face it, you're on a sinking ship, studying theology was a huge mistake.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're not even tracking what my position is

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            your position after college is serving coffee to people who made better study choices.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, it is an unfalsifiable issue in practice. It is impossible to design a study that would satisfy those who believe in it. They will always find an excuse and it will even be a reasonable excuse.

            You really can't admit having been wrong
            wow

            I'm not that anon.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's just people being able to modify their theories and make them more ad hoc, in the case of disconfirming evidence

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. This is why Popper is not really the preferred choice for philosophers of science.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't want to fall in this rabbit hole, atheist anon...
            The one who doesn't want to is you.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>not a single people on Earth ever wrote about the day/night cycle stopping around the time the Bible alleges it to
      you did not research any of this at all, did you?

    • 6 months ago
      I AM

      >God is 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt, refutable empirically.

      The GOD of Abraham, sure.

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I know you think you've discovered a perfect philosophical argument to prove god's existence. Even if you have (you haven't moron you post on Oyish) I want you to thuink about how much a normal person considers this.
    >oh this evolution thing is true huh?
    >that makes me question some of this other stuff
    >I got a life to live though, I guess it's still true but like in a whatever way.
    That's literally it.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is OP a Jehovah's Witness? I noticed he sounds like he's following a "script" while ignoring any posts that don't follow the script, this is pretty standard JW behavior.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I assume you have been writing these posts

      Nice cope.

      Not following your script,sorry

      and are upset that I'm ignoring them for people who can actually debate.

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Surely theism should be at least an equally valid viewpoint, given the lack of hard evidence for atheism.
    Atheism doesn't need hard evidence, the burden of proof is on theism.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're a little behind pal, the conversation has already progressed beyond this cowardly rhetorical trick. Feel free to actually read and respond to the OP if you want.

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do christians think the best argument is to tell atheists that they're the exact same thing lol

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is not an argument for Christianity.

      This is actually a counter argument to the claim that "theists believe in unfalsifiable claims unlike us superior atheists". When in fact, atheists do believe in unfalsifiable claims as well.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        What do you if the atheist says something like, he believe in less unnecessary unfalsifiable claims, or something like his claims being simpler
        and therefore you should adopt his position

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >he believe in less unnecessary unfalsifiable claims
          He is wrong, in this case.

          >or something like his claims being simpler
          A metaphysical claim being simpler doesn't make it right.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You want to elaborate on why he is wrong?
            (Suppose he shares all your presuppositions MINUS the God ones.)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You want to elaborate on why he is wrong?
            >(Suppose he shares all your presuppositions MINUS the God ones.)
            Because the difference would be solely in one unfalsifiable claim: the existence of God.

            I would also like to add that this worship of falsifiability is kind of weird. Popper is not the only philosopher of science and in real life things are harder than this.

            Consider something like "family arrangements are not important for the development of mentally healthy children". This is likely false, probably the clearest case of something being false in all social sciences. But at which point is it falsifiable?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >family arrangements are not important for the development of mentally healthy children
            Establish some defined parameters of what you mean by the terms and this is literally an empirical claim

            I don't get how you can say it's unfalsifiable, unless you want to make it about having the knowledge with absolute certainty or something like that (which is missing the point)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because there are a very large amount of people, social scientists even, who deeply believe in this who are not persuaded by the very large amount of data showing that in fact, family matters.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That just means that a large amount of people, even social scientists, are not receptive to reasons for belief revision.
            I would just say that they are being irrational, about this 1 belief.

            This has no bearing on the claim being unfalsifiable or not.

            Imagine a flat-Earther, put him into a space rocket and have him look out the window at a globe Earth
            Then he goes like: Nuh-uh! Earth still flat, I'm not gonna change my mind. (maybe he make up some excuse why, doesn't really matter)
            Hopefully you agree with me, that the claim: "The Earth is globe-shaped", is not an unfalsifiable claim.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's how science works in practice. And it could be that they are right, by the way. But maybe they are right that other characteristics are the ones causing difference in outcomes.
            I think the evidence is pretty clear that family matters. But we are unlikely to ever have a silver bullet that totally beats the question.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then it isn't really the case that they "are not persuaded by the very large amount of data showing that in fact, family matters."
            They disagree about how to interpret that data. They don't think the data shows that family matters.

            Right, that just means it's a hard question to answer. Not that it's it's unfalsifiable

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Back in the Enlightenment era atheists were the intelligensia of the day. Today the stereotype of an atheist is a fat sweaty neckbeard in his mom's basement who beats off to extreme porn.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You think the decline in religious belief is explained by an increasing number of neckbeards?

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Religion is for the gullible and easily manipulated, no thanks. I'd rather sound myself with a cactus.

  22. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >decline of faith
    This is the end of the Kali Yuga. You're not aware, because you don't know where to look, but faith is regrowing again.

  23. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I wonder how atheists can explain the decline of faith in God in recent decades?
    Social power of religion and thus pressure to be religious vanished over time thanks to the secularization, as a result less and less people feel the pressure to pretend to be religious. Your mistake is that you believe religion is there by default, but it is man made and you need to mental gymnastics kids into it to keep the meme alive. If you don't do that then religion dies off in a generation and a half.

  24. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I get the non-literalism position about Genesis. Guys like Augustine(?) writing about it so early make it seem more legit, and less like cope, IMO

    However, are Christians non-literalist about the israeli exodus from Egypt as well?
    I've never heard a Christian say Moses was a metaphor

    I think the reasons that explains this is super lame.
    It's probably just because the evidence against a literal exodus is much weaker, it's hard to prove what happened, or DIDN'T happen thousands of years ago.
    Large parts are arguments from silence. We would expect there to be historical evidence for the exodus, yet this evidence those not exist -> therefor it didn't happen, is a much weaker line of reasoning than what we know about the natural sciences in the case of a literal Genesis

  25. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Have you understood now why religion is in free fall in the western world?

  26. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The increase in information. The same reason the catholic church clung onto a mandate of illiteracy for centuries up to the 1940s. People can read and see what's actually written.

    Paul told people to start selling their stuff because they wouldn't need it soon. Jesus even said he'd be back with his rewards before the first century was out.

    >For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
    Matthew 16:27-28

    Not to mention all the information people have no to witness the hipocrisy of church leadership. Even if someone was a Christian, they would never stay in an institution that goes directly against Jesus' direct teaching in the sermon on the mount about false teachers and their fruit. Every angle you come at this has blatant cause, no matter one's motivation to check.

    Information.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The increase in information
      Amazing how the rest of this post does not support this claim at all. Actual gibberish, just a collection of endlessly-repeated reddit tropes.
      >there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom
      This happened btw. Infidels should not be allowed Scripture, the smallest things confuse them.

  27. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't consider myself an atheist because it would depend on the definition of God, I just think the Trinity is illogical

  28. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    belief in a god is a sign of weakness

  29. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Proseletism, preaching, cooptation and/or violence.

  30. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the lack of hard evidence for atheism
    lol
    lmao even

  31. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Athiesm is a very loud minority. If you ask most people they are some form of theist or agnostic

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      For the five billionth time, people who call themselves agnostics are atheists.

  32. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    because your "truth" isn't truth, it was only staying afloat through violence, same as islam is today and the same way islam will die out

  33. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Doctrine takes time to develop.

  34. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  35. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t see a decline of religion. The explosion of the Woke movement was the biggest religious revival in the West since the times of Early Christianity in the Roman Empire. We are living in hyper-religious times.

  36. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The big issue is that all the extant religions either played their hand by making claims about the physical world that were eventually disproven, or they're wishy washy bullshit voodoo religions, so any modern theism has to overcome the hump of being the latest in a long series of failed attempts, so you'd better have some mount sinai type shit for me to witness if you want me on board.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Like all of the other replies this doesn't really have much to do with the OP at all. Not one poster has even attempted to grapple with the logic put forward, which is incredible. Your post very much follows the typical format seen ITT of redirecting the conversation and just making up whatever is convenient for you about religion. There is not a single aspect of the Christian, pagan, Buddhist etc. worldview that scientism could hope to refute.
      >But there was this religious guy in the past who thought heliocentrism was real :((
      This is the seriously the best they've got.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        OP just claimed that Science can't touch the God concept itself, which is true, but they've still got the rest of the baggage, flase claims, obvious ethno-centric motivations, being invented by some moronic Indian (buddhism) weighing them down.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The Buddha was just some schizo or a liar bro dude trust me.
          Really, can you provide hard evidence he didn't actually discover the truths he claimed? Looks like we're right back at square one otherwise.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not needing evidence to dismiss the claims of south Asians is the core axiomatic position of my being.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            For all we know Gotama Buddha could have been a fair-haired nobleman with blood lineage going back to the Andronovo culture, but how much he resembled modern South Asians is quite irrelevant. Not all axioms are equal and the presumption that all traditional, civilized societies were drawing knowledge from the same transcendent well has a lot more explanative power than "everyone who isn't an atheist is a schizo." Not to mention that healthier minds are naturally averse to atheistic axioms.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe you forgot the part where I said God is still a solid concept, but I just hate Indians.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know what you said, which is a very colored way of thinking. Contrary to what communists will tell you, the British did not hate their Indian subjects, but merely viewed them as one views a child or an adorable creature. This site's increasingly neurotic fixation on Indians is further testament to how negrified it has become.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I hate the British too, if I had my way we'd stitch all the Brits and Hindus into a homunculus mass and take pot shots at it with F-16s, also I talkes to God and he said that would be a good thing to do.

    • 6 months ago
      I AM

      :^)
      What, you want liars to give you laws that ostensibly come from GOD? The truth is, these things are best debated in open forum and decided as a collective - not - believe a guy who said he got laws from GOD - GOD will spite you - because the lack of flexibility WILL come home to roost. All things are relative to the Absolute.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I genuinely cannot parse this.

        • 6 months ago
          I AM

          I ain't got no commandments for you, bro. Causality is enough to teach the wisdom needed to like... not murder eachother, for no reason, for example.

  37. 6 months ago
    I AM

    The reason why faith in GOD has declined in recent decades is because religions purport an afterlife of eternal punishment, which is so slanderous, and makes GOD look like a capricious, evil villain.

    Unfortunately, the lost ones are too hitched to their scriptures - if they actually read them, they'd see that it isn't the whole truth - actually, most of it is lies with occasional wisdom.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >look like a capricious, evil villain
      To you. Not to my ancestors. Not to the great bishops, theologians, saints, and crusaders of old. And what is the judgement of some effeminate "spiritual, not religious" cretin worth? I deem it less than theirs.

  38. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do Christians do this weird motte and bailey thing when debating atheists where they LARP as deists who believe in some abstract, completely unfalsifiable Platonic monad? They're not actually deists, they believe in the scientific and historical claims of the Bible, but they LARP as deists or neo-Platonists when arguing religion because it makes them look smarter.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I made and posted in this thread quite a few times and never once did I hide the fact that I'm a Christian. I used an image of Christ as the OP and explicitly stated my views early on. The point is that before we can begin arguing for Christianity we have to expose the cowardly rhetorical tricks of the atheists. The existence of some sort of divinity has to be taken as a given, as it was in all traditional, civilized societies.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Telling us why you think it's true that some guy walked on water 2000 years ago, would be a great start

      • 6 months ago
        I AM

        >cowardly rhetorical tricks of the atheists.

        >believes in an after life, resurrections, and magic tricks

        >cant see how he slanders GOD

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Telling us why you think it's true that some guy walked on water 2000 years ago, would be a great start

        Just to be clear
        >why atheism?
        Cuz I don't think it's true that some guy walked on water 2000 years ago

  39. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think Americans went in a very dumb direction with Religion and it ultimately hurt them. Not, as much as the British did, whose religion outright died, but still.

  40. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not atheist, but it's fairly trivial to explain. For a really long time people were forced to go to church, without really understanding faith. For obvious reasons, this bred resentment, so nowadays, now that people are free to choose to simply not be religious, unlike, well, 2 centuries ago, most people are more and more secular. The same thing happened in reverse in a lot of post-Communist nations, specifically, those who claimed Atheism as their official religion, see Poland.
    For some, it's enough to be nominal christians, some go as far as to reject any form of theism entirely, some go for different faiths, either way, the cause is obvious: Kids growing up burned out on religion.
    Of course, doesn't help that like, every 5 minutes a story pops up about some clergy fricker being a pedo, and the church covering it up. It doesn't even matter which church it is, which religion it is even, because the root of the problem is that when you put enough people in a position of authority and trust, it's only natural eventually enough of them will abuse it.
    So yeah, best way to reverse the trend would be to let people discover religion on their own, but unfortunately, that goes against religions that preach proselytization (you know, "be religious or the demons will get you"), so while I think the paradigm will shift eventually, it's gonna take a long, long time.

    TL;DR: People are less religious than ever because of a combination of having the freedom to be less religious, the fact that for generations, religion was forced down on them (think Streissand effect), and the fact that every religion these days has some sort of scandal.

    Probably doesn't help that quality of life doesn't visibly increase if you believe in any religion or not. The world is cruel and merciless, regardless of what you believe in, so at this point people give less and less of a shit about it.

  41. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    People not only do not have a belief in God's existence, but also a lack of faith in God fulfilling his promises. The Bible clearly shows God and Jesus working miracles and feats in explicit and plainly visible ways so as to gain faith and prove their existence and might, yet they do not do that anymore. Paul believed that he would witness the rapture, and yet he did not. God is proclaimed to be good and shown to look out for his followers in their darkest hour, yet people cannot see him doing that anymore. Perhaps you could prove to the atheists that God does indeed exist, but can you prove that he did not abandon us?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >nuart version
      cancer

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Paul believed that he would witness the rapture
      That's your idiosyncratic interpretation, and clearly not how Christians have interpreted Paul historically.
      You seriously think the guys who compiled the books in the Bible didn't notice this plot-hole? This is giving the people at the time WAY to little credit
      Like: Whoops, we made half the Bible out of Paul's letters, the guy who was super wrong about everything.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >half the Bible
        new testament*

  42. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do tradlarpers whine about scientism yet never actually refute or disprove scientism? These threads are just whining with no actual arguments.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *