| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Josef Balluch" |
| Date: |
03 May 2005 10:55:47 AM |
| Object: |
Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/April/02/style/stories/01style
..htm
The present trend has Christians becoming the minority in America within
four decades.
Also significant, the largest percentage change was from organized religion
to "none at all".
Regards,
Josef
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
07 Apr 2005 09:35:18 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:03:10 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
Well, you're going to run in bad company. All 0.5% of you.
Proof. Christian zealots are uneducateable.
I think I understand perfectly well how little 0.5% means.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of
American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If
current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves
religious within a few years. Results include:
About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from
30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious.
10% and that is double from 1990.
As I've mentioned before the Paradise - Chico area of Northern California
had 147,520 or 72% of the population claim no affiliation with Evangelical
or mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox, or other.
This was not asked in 1990.
What is especially interesting is that Paradise has a church on every other
corner, a Seventh Day Adventist hospital and used to be noted for it's
fundamental views.
("Hell breaks out in Paradise." Life Magazine sometime in the late 60's did
a spread on the town.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
05 Apr 2005 09:41:39 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
On 05 Apr 2005, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:22:15 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 04 Apr 2005, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
9% atheists.
0.4% atheists.
On whose side do you count the people who claim "no religion"?
Definitley not atheists. Atheists only make up 0.5% if they claim
the pagans.
That would sure make you feel happy, wouldn't it? Screw you. I'm a
nonconformist, have been all my life. I question authority, and I
think for myself. I personally do not care if I am the only atheist
in the world. I can't believe how many people are willing to accept
any whopper of a story the authorities tell them as long as you offer
them life after death. How can you offer someone something that
there is no evidence for? It's dishonest. As dishonest as selling
your uncle the Brooklyn Bridge.
Earl,at best, ignores Russia and China which have huge atheist populations.
Most likely he just makes up a number and tries to remember it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
02 Apr 2005 05:20:53 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2005 11:55:47 -0400, "Josef Balluch"
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/April/02/style/stories/01style
.htm
The present trend has Christians becoming the minority in America within
four decades.
How so, when we continue to increase.
You dumb *****. I posted this dozens of times, here it is again.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
The shift away from Christianity and other organized religions:
The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in
religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating
themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since
World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the
U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. But,
until recently, affiliation with Christianity had been at a high level --
about 87% -- and stable in the U.S.
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a
major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has
suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9
percentage points per year.
This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001.
If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will
outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan
religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents
went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are
doubling about every 30 months. 4,5 Wiccans in Australia have a very
similar growth pattern, from fewer than 2,000 in 1996 to 9,000 in 2001. 10
In Canada, Wiccans and other Neopagans showed the greatest percentage
growth of any faith group. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase
of 281% when compared with 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid
increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more
Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than
there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together. 6
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington
State. "The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they
have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at
22%." 6
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American
adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends
continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few
years. Results include:
About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious. 6
In ten years, % of christians has slid from 86% to 75%.
% of people who have identified themselves as not spiritual
and not religous has doubled to 10%.
I posted this at least 25 times in the last 6 weeks and you didn't
bother with it?
You dumb, ignorant, nose picking *****.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
03 Apr 2005 07:45:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:20:53 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
You dumb *****. I posted this dozens of times, here it is again.
that's ok, barnwell, you also posted your proof that there is no God dozens of
times, and I disproved you dozens of times.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
And my site says 84% down to 82%. And atheists up from 0% to 1%.
http://www.adherents.com/
The shift away from Christianity and other organized religions:
The real problem with the data is the re-shift that has already taken place.
The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in
religious practices.
And more and more are becoming Roman Catholic.
Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating
themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since
World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the
U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. But,
until recently, affiliation with Christianity had been at a high level --
about 87% -- and stable in the U.S.
You notice - stable in the US.
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a
major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has
suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9
percentage points per year.
Ever look at a chart of the stock market.
This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001.
If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will
outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
If, if, if - if there were ice water in hell, maybe 1 or 2 people wouldn't
scream in horror to get out.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
And 33% of the world population is RC.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
Where are the atheists?
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan
religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft.
Wiccans are pagans.
Numbers of adherents
went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are
doubling about every 30 months. 4,5 Wiccans in Australia have a very
similar growth pattern, from fewer than 2,000 in 1996 to 9,000 in 2001. 10
In Canada, Wiccans and other Neopagans showed the greatest percentage
growth of any faith group. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an increase
of 281% when compared with 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid
increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more
Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than
there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together. 6
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in Washington
State. "The six states with the highest percentage of people saying they
have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of Vermont at
22%." 6
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American
adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends
continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few
years. Results include:
About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious. 6
In ten years, % of christians has slid from 86% to 75%.
% of people who have identified themselves as not spiritual
and not religous has doubled to 10%.
I posted this at least 25 times in the last 6 weeks and you didn't
bother with it?
You dumb, ignorant, nose picking *****.
God doesn't count numbers of people, willie. He counts the ones that listen to
him.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
03 Apr 2005 02:05:10 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:20:53 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
You dumb *****. I posted this dozens of times, here it is again.
that's ok, barnwell, you also posted your proof that there is no God
dozens of times, and I disproved you dozens of times.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
And my site says 84% down to 82%. And atheists up from 0% to 1%.
Your site is wrong. For decades, Gallup had Atheists at 3% of the
population, as did other polls.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist4.htm
ARIS and other major surveys have shown rising secularism, Atheism,
and unchurched numbers. Not that you'd know anything about THESE.
Look up the study done for USA Today 2 years ago.
The survey and news reports about the study, though, noted that one of the
most significant findings involved growth in that segment of the adult
population "identifying with no religion." In 1990, 14.3 million or roughly
8% identified with this category. The new ARIS count now shows that the
non-believer population has grown to 29.4 million, roughly 14.1% of the
American community. The ARIS team notes that the 1990 figure "may be
downwardly biased due to a slight change in the working of the key survey
question in 2001. In seeking a more accurate measure of identification, the
clause 'if any' was added this year to the question, 'What religion do you
identify with?' "
What matters is not how many say they are atheists, but how many have no
religion.
Thanks to the savage reaction to atheism, many people will not label
themselves such, but are atheists.
10% now admit to being not religous and not spiritual.
Atheist by all accounts.
We still have some way to go so we can admit it publically.
http://www.adherents.com/
The shift away from Christianity and other organized religions:
The real problem with the data is the re-shift that has already taken
place.
No, religion is taking a hit, and has over the last decade
in America.
The worst is yet to come. Young people are remarkably less
religous than past generations. The older generation, 60 years
old and up are the most religous segment by far. But they
wil die off rapidly over the next 20 years, raising the non-believer
segment of the population.
The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in
religious practices.
And more and more are becoming Roman Catholic.
No. Roman Catholicism is remaining constant numberwise,
but because the population is expanding, that is a
drop % wise.
The papal drift to ultraconservatism, stupid policies on birth
control, and lack of ability to handle the pedophile problem
is repelling people. The church is now in a real
crisis due to lack of people willing to become priests or nuns.
The pews are filled with very old people.
Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating
themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since
World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the
U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. But,
until recently, affiliation with Christianity had been at a high level --
about 87% -- and stable in the U.S.
You notice - stable in the US.
You didn't notice. "Until recently".
Duhhhhhhhh!
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is
a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has
suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9
percentage points per year.
Ever look at a chart of the stock market.
This isn't the stock market, stupid.
Ever look at religous belief in Europe.
Its been dropping since WWI. We are just beginning
to catch up.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
urope
Norris and Inglehart (2004) found that 39% of those in Britain do not
believe in God. According to a 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC, 44% of
the British do not believe in God. According to Greeley (2003), 31% of the
British do not believe in God, although only 10% self-identify as
?atheist.? According to Bruce (2002), 10% of the British self-identify as
an ?agnostic person? and 8% as a ?convinced atheist,? with an additional
21% choosing ?not a religious person.? According to Froese (2001), 32% of
the British are atheist or agnostic. According to Gallup and Lindsay
(1999:121), 39% of the British do not believe in God or a ?Higher Power.?
According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 44% of those in France do not
believe in God. According to Greeley (2003), 48% of the French do not
believe in God, although only 19% self-identify as ?atheist.? According to
Froese (2001), 54% of the French are atheist or agnostic. According to
Davie (1999), 43% of the French do not believe in God.
According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not
believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they
did not believe in ?a personal God.? According to Greeley (2003), 46% of
Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as ?atheist.?
According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic.
According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe
in a ?personal God.? According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not
believe in God.
Here is where we are heading, slowly but surely.
This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and
2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians
will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
If, if, if - if there were ice water in hell, maybe 1 or 2 people wouldn't
scream in horror to get out.
What? You seem to be worried.
But ranting and raving won't save christianity.
I for one welcome our new Atheist overlords.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
And 33% of the world population is RC.
Depends on how you define rc. Many in South America really
aren't but are counted as such. Many are really practitioners
of Macumba and other African religioms that have a thin veneer of
Catholicism.
Many are nominal RCC. As them what religion they are and they go
"Duhhhh ... Catholic, I guess".
Brought up in the church, dropped out, really aren't.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
Where are the atheists?
Down below.... "10% nonreligious and nonspiritual".
The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a
Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft.
Wiccans are pagans.
No, no,no. You don't get it do you.
Wiccans and Neo-Pagans are NOT the same.
Pagan is neither, its an ancient pejoritive
from ignorant christians.
To many good god fearing folk, Catholoics are pagans,
not really christians. Same bigotry you just blurted
out.
Numbers of adherents
went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are
doubling about every 30 months. 4,5 Wiccans in Australia have a very
similar growth pattern, from fewer than 2,000 in 1996 to 9,000 in 2001. 10
In Canada, Wiccans and other Neopagans showed the greatest percentage
growth of any faith group. They totaled 21,080 members in 1991, an
increase of 281% when compared with 1990.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid
increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more
Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than
there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together. 6
The unaffiliated vary from a low of 3% in North Dakota to 25% in
Washington State. "The six states with the highest percentage of people
saying they have no religion are all Western states, with the exception of
Vermont at 22%." 6
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American
adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends
continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few
years. Results include:
About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious.
Here are your atheists.
Its just that for purposes of getting jobs, not being
harrassed at work, at school et al, most don't use that label.
But that is what they are.
In ten years, % of christians has slid from 86% to 75%.
% of people who have identified themselves as not spiritual
and not religous has doubled to 10%.
I posted this at least 25 times in the last 6 weeks and you didn't
bother with it?
You dumb, ignorant, nose picking *****.
God doesn't count numbers of people, willie. He counts the ones that
listen to him.
God does not exist. People are catching on.
urope
Norris and Inglehart (2004) found that 39% of those in Britain do not
believe in God. According to a 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC, 44% of
the British do not believe in God. According to Greeley (2003), 31% of the
British do not believe in God, although only 10% self-identify as
?atheist.? According to Bruce (2002), 10% of the British self-identify as
an ?agnostic person? and 8% as a ?convinced atheist,? with an additional
21% choosing ?not a religious person.? According to Froese (2001), 32% of
the British are atheist or agnostic. According to Gallup and Lindsay
(1999:121), 39% of the British do not believe in God or a ?Higher Power.?
According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 44% of those in France do not
believe in God. According to Greeley (2003), 48% of the French do not
believe in God, although only 19% self-identify as ?atheist.? According to
Froese (2001), 54% of the French are atheist or agnostic. According to
Davie (1999), 43% of the French do not believe in God.
According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not
believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they
did not believe in ?a personal God.? According to Greeley (2003), 46% of
Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as ?atheist.?
According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic.
According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe
in a ?personal God.? According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not
believe in God.
Here is where we are heading, goofball.
And we can't get there fast enough.
We are now where the Roman empire was
2000 years ago when pagan religions were found
wanting and started dying.
Your religion is likewsie so much crap and is likewise,
rapidly dying.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
03 Apr 2005 01:35:10 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:20:53 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
You dumb *****. I posted this dozens of times, here it is again.
that's ok, barnwell, you also posted your proof that there is no God
dozens of times, and I disproved you dozens of times.
Bwhahahahahhaha!
No, you went halfway through it once and bailed.
You lost. Decisively, totally, utterly, absolutely.
AND, I have been posting at least 6 disproofs, none
of which you can handle.
1. Does go make the rules, laws and logic
of the Universe? If yes he is omnimalevolent,
if not, not as claimed creator of all, omnipotent
et al.
2. God supposedly has free will and is omnibenevolent,
he has a good nature and cannot do evil.
Why does he not then create man likewise to have
free will and agood nature incapable of moral evil?
God either cannot, or will not.
Not as claimed, omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
3. Free wil is impossible in a world with a creator
god who is omnipotent and omniscient.
Evil exists, god is therefore evil for all evil is
his doing.
4. Archeaology debunks the biblical god. A god who is
represented as a character who did certain things
at certain times with certain people for certain
reasons.
None of that happened, the bioble is a fraud, and
so are all the theological claims hanging off these
faux histories.
5. Omnipotence. It is a word that is incoeherent and self
defeating. And the bible shows us a god who is not at all
omnipotent.
6. Omniscience. The bible likewise shows us a bumbling,
stupid god utterly lacking omniscience.
You can't handle any of this because you are stupid.
You haven't even tried.
Much less dozens of times. You are not only stupid.
You are a liar. As if we don't know that by now.
The last time you 'tried', you went halfway through my proof,
felt the ground giving way under your feet and bailed.
******************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #1
William C. Barwell 3-8-05
******************************************************
1. Orthodox theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
E. God is merciful
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
and he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and any future
actions that will take place in that Universe.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he will create. If he creates a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world if Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead. God may easily chose any world he wishes,
he has no constraints on his omnipotence.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter, he has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's choice alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely because god made the concious and purposeful
decision to create an evil Smith who does moral evil.
Smith's actions, and all his intentions and mental states
are predetermined and created in actuality by god.
He can have no free will even in principle. God does
not create a Smith with free will and turn his loose
in an undetermined Universe. All real acts and all real
mental states of Smith have been considered by god, and
chosen from among many possiblibilities and purposefully
created by god to the smallest detail by god alone,
involving all time within Smith's life, second by second.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any
man or woman or other sentient beings, angels or devils,
that are good or evil are made by knowingly by god.
If any man or woman or being does moral evil it is
solely and only because god decided to create a world
where they exist and do evil and are damned.
All actions of these beings are specifically chosen
and created by god in the most finegrained manner
physically possible in any Universe God actually
creates, down to the smallest possible actually
existant quantum time and space scales in this world.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women or beings who do
moral evil, moral evil exists solely and only because
god knowingly creates morally evil, sentient beings.
11. Since it is god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator and sustaining cause of
all moral evil in the Universe, and he could just as
easily created all men to do only moral good, but
specifically and purposefully chose not to do so.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is no way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man. If he is good, he is
good only because god chose to create him good.
And thus no way to claim evil is necessary to allow for
free will which is a common theological claim.
Free will thus cannot be used to get god out of any
blame for existance of moral evil in the world.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Thus a god who is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of the entire world
5. Merciful
Cannot exist in a world where moral evil exists.
16. If such a god existed, free will cannot exist.
17. A god that creates a man as evil, then tortures him
for all eternity for evil acts god created him doing,
who could have made him good, made all his acts good,
created him good a believer and saved, is the one who
is evil, not the man so created evil who had no choice
in this at all. Such a god cannot be said to be
omnibenevolent nor merciful, probably cannot even
be claimed to be sane.
(End)
****************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of God #2
William C. Barwell 3-14-05
****************************************************
1. God is said to be omnibenevolent, all good.
2. God is also said to have free will.
3. God is also said to be omnipotent.
4. By omnibenevolent, it is meant that god is said
to be incapable of doing evil.
5. But does not this mean god is not omnipotent?
Doesn't god's omnibenevolence limit his omnipotence?
6. No. God has a good nature. He does not do evil.
But he has the very real power to do evil if
he was not restrained by his good nature.
Thus his good nature does not affect his omnipotence.
7. Nor does this then affect his free will. Merely
having a good nature in no way can effect his
having free will. Men may be goodly or evil,
such qualities do not mean they lack free will.
Likewise god's good nature similarly does not
mean god has no free will.
6. So god has free will and a good nature incapable
of doing evil and retains his omnipotence also.
7. Why is there evil in this world? Alledgedly so
man can be said to have free will. Given free
will some men do evil by their own free will.
8. But if god can have free will, and a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, why then cannot
god likewise give man free will and a good nature
incapable of evil such as god has, thus eliminating
moral evil from this world?
9. If god is as claimed, omnibenevolent and omnipotent
then he is obligated by his omnibenevolence to give
all men free will and a good nature so they will
not sin and be saved. And thus that no moral
evil is allowed to exist in the Universe.
10. Logically then, a god that is simultaneously
omnibenevolent, omnipotent and has free will
cannot exist. Man's free will is not an adequate
excuse to explain the existance of moral evil
and to save a god that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and allows moral evil to exist.
(End)
**************************************************
God disproven - Free will disproof of god #3
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
God is defined as being:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent.
4. The most powerful thing that can be imagined.
5. The creator of all.
6. Intelligent and concious, having will.
7. What do we mean by omnipotent?
Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
8. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
9. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
10. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
11. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
12. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
13. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
14. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
15. Free will is said to be why evil exists, man is given
free will and sometimes abuses it. But as we can see,
free will cannot save god from blame if he can make the
rules and laws and laws and logic of the Universe.
16. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
17. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
18. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
19. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
20. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is falsified also.
21. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe that contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
22. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 300 BCE. The gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
23. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
24. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
25. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
26. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
27. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
28. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
29. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
A few quotes from the experts:
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
************************************************************************************
God Disproven Number 3
**********************************
Romans 11:7-8
Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for; but the election hath obtained it; and the
rest were blinded.
(According as it is written, God hath given them
the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not
see, ears that they should not hear) unto this
day.
Many christians claim god gave us free will,
but here we see that that in fact, god is
said to blind many to spiritual truth. So
in fact, free will means nothing to god. Here
Paul is trying to explain why Israel has rejected
Jesus as a messiah.
Thus, if god does not care about free will, and even
denies men free will by so blinding them, free will is
no longer an arguable claim if the bible is true.
If god is omnibenevolent, then he would be duty
bound to make all men believers and all men capable
of only doing moral good. If he could do so, and
does not he is not omnibenevolent.
So a benevolent god that does not care about free will
cannot exist in a world where we see unbelief and moral
evil.
*********
Most theologians in the past have agreed god has free will.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica made that quite explicit.
Yet all theologians also agree god is omnibenevolent.
That is he has free will yet can only do good, never evil.
Yet many apologists tell us man needs free will and thus
ability to do evil. This is to get god off the hook for
existance of evil.
But as god can have a good nature and free will, so can man.
That argument is no longer viable.
But if god can make man with a god like free will
and good nature incapable of never doing moral
evil and fails to, he is the creator and sustaining
cause of all evil and is evil himself.
That we live in a world where moral evil exists proves
an omnibenevolent god is nonexistant.
**********
God is said to be omnipotent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
If yes he cannot lift such a rock and thus is
non-omnipotent. If no, he cannot create such a
rock and is non-omnipotent.
Omnipotent is a self destructing concept that cannot
exist in reality. It is literally nonsense, incoherent,
impossible.
Thus an omnipotent god is not possible.
***********
Is god omnipotent? In Judges 1:19, god
cannot deal with iron chariots.
And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.
An inventive and intelligent god would have
made the chariot wheels fall off or killed
the horses such as he killed all the cattle
of Egypt in Exodus 9:6.
If the bible is true, there is no omnipotent god.
If apologists wish to claim there is such and
omnipotent god, they have to admit the bible is
false and rather silly.
***********
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die.
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this lie
would not achieve its goal.
Again, if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
***********
Is god omnibenevolent? By all claims, yes.
That is god must always do good and never evil.
But if he can never do evil, then there is
god cannot do, evil. Thus he has no free will
after all. And there is something he cannot do.
Evil. He is not omnipotent.
Thus a an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god with
free will cannot exist as claimed. Theology has
pretended to solve this problem by essentially
redefining free will and omnipotent in a very
dishonest manner and hoping nobody ever noticed.
And of course there was always the torture chamber
for those who might be honest.
************
Exodus Chapter 5
5:4
And it came to pass by the way into the inn
that the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill
him. Then Zipporah (Moses's wife see Exodus 2;21)
took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her
son and cast it at his feet, and said, surely
a bloody husband thou art to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband
thou art because of the circumcission.
This bizaare tale presents god as being unable
to kill Moses in a personal attack upon his
person bodily.
Thus if the bible is true, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. This is one tale you will not hear
preached from the local pulpits.
A god incapable of killing a solitary Israelite
in an ambush outside an inn isn't much of a god.
****************
(End)
***********************************************
God Disproven Omniscience #1
William C. Barwell 3-9-05
***********************************************
God is said to be omniscient, knowing all.
In Genesis 2:17, god lies to Adam.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die."
The problem is that this outrageous lie did not
dissuade Adam from actually not eating of the tree.
Yet god was not omniscient enough to see that this
lie would not achieve its goal.
Thus if the bible is true, there is no omniscient god.
An omniscient god cannot exist.
And god here is a liar, which is not omni-benevolent
by any means.
(End)
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
03 Apr 2005 05:50:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:35:10 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:20:53 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
You dumb *****. I posted this dozens of times, here it is again.
that's ok, barnwell, you also posted your proof that there is no God
dozens of times, and I disproved you dozens of times.
Bwhahahahahhaha!
No, you went halfway through it once and bailed.
You lost. Decisively, totally, utterly, absolutely.
barnwell, you busted the front. You can cut and paste, but you cna't
comprehend.
Better luck next time.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
03 Apr 2005 07:51:07 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:35:10 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:20:53 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
You dumb *****. I posted this dozens of times, here it is again.
that's ok, barnwell, you also posted your proof that there is no God
dozens of times, and I disproved you dozens of times.
Bwhahahahahhaha!
No, you went halfway through it once and bailed.
You lost. Decisively, totally, utterly, absolutely.
barnwell, you busted the front. You can cut and paste, but you cna't
comprehend.
Better luck next time.
You have opened the research archive on general religious beliefs. The
statistics and analysis in this archive come from national surveys
conducted by Barna Research. Click the subcategories on the side menu to
automatically scroll to specific sections in this archive.
For more information about general beliefs on religion, be sure to check out
the related resources and news releases featured on this page. Also, watch
for new information to be added to this archive in the months to come.
Faith Groups (2002)
*******
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
You are such a loser. Everybody tells you that and
you don't change your loser ways.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
04 Apr 2005 05:43:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:51:07 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
barnwell, you busted the front. You can cut and paste, but you cna't
comprehend.
Better luck next time.
You have opened the research archive on general religious beliefs. The
statistics and analysis in this archive come from national surveys
conducted by Barna Research.
And they compare to Adherents. Like I said, you can cut and paste, but you
can't comprehend.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
03 Apr 2005 07:34:36 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:35:10 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:20:53 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
You dumb *****. I posted this dozens of times, here it is again.
that's ok, barnwell, you also posted your proof that there is no God
dozens of times, and I disproved you dozens of times.
Bwhahahahahhaha!
No, you went halfway through it once and bailed.
You lost. Decisively, totally, utterly, absolutely.
barnwell, you busted the front. You can cut and paste, but you cna't
comprehend.
You are one of the net's notable intellectually incapable losers.
Comprehension is utterly lacking in you.
********************
Australia , Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 25% of those in Australia do not
believe in God. According to Paul (2002), 24% Australians are atheist or
agnostic.
Guth and Fraser (2001) found that 28% of Canadians ?show no evidence of
religious salience or activity.? According to Norris and Inglehart (2004),
22% of those in Canada do not believe in God. According to Bibby (2002),
when asked ?Do you believe that God exists?? 6% of Canadians answered ?No,
I definitely do not? and another 13% answered, ?No, I don?t think so,? for
a total of 19% being classified as either atheist or agnostic. According to
Gallup and Lindsay (1999:121), 30% of Canadians do not believe in God or a
?Higher Power.?
Inglehart et al (2004) found that 22% of those in New Zealand do not believe
in God, and Paul (2002) found that 20% of New Zealanders are atheist or
agnostic.
According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 6% of those in the United States
do not believe in God. According to a 2004 survey commissioned by the
BBC( v ), 9% of Americans do not believe in God. Rice (2003) found that
3.8% of Americans don?t believe in God or ?a spirit or life force.?
According to Hout and Fischer (2002), between 3-4.5% of Americans are
either atheist or agnostic; Marwell and Demerath (2003) suggest that a more
accurate estimate is 7%. According to Paul (2002) and Froese (2001), 8% of
Americans are atheist or agnostic. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public
Life found that 16% of Americans claim no religious affiliation (Kang,
2004). According to Gallup and Lindsay (1999:99), 5% of Americans do not
believe in God or a ?Higher Power.?
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity Continues to Decline in America |
04 Apr 2005 05:42:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:34:36 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:35:10 -0500, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:20:53 -0600, wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
You dumb *****. I posted this dozens of times, here it is again.
that's ok, barnwell, you also posted your proof that there is no God
dozens of times, and I disproved you dozens of times.
Bwhahahahahhaha!
No, you went halfway through it once and bailed.
You lost. Decisively, totally, utterly, absolutely.
barnwell, you busted the front. You can cut and paste, but you cna't
comprehend.
You are one of the net's notable intellectually incapable losers.
Comprehension is utterly lacking in you.
And yet I still disproved convincingly your stupid proof of no God. It's your
pipe dream, and it is in error. I did it to both of your versions.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
