With that said, the Internet is a constant that will provide the greatest "challenge" of all time to religion/God.

 

My guess is lack of religious affiliation/atheism will grow in the next 20 years or so.

The Internet is also a constant that will provide the greatest "opportunity" for evangelization that the world has ever known. With our intricately connected world, we can augment traditional mission work with what you might call "cyber-missionaries" and Internet evangelism. I see it as a wash at the very least.

 

As to the second point, lack of religious affiliation and atheism are two very different concepts. I can see the possibility of growth in those who claim no affiliation, but not in true atheism.

The only logical conclusion I can gather from this whole thing is that Bert is one sharp dude.

 

 

 

lol

The Age of Enlightenment caused a temporary (a century or so I believe) increase in atheism as intellectuals in Europe stated they had proven the non existence of God and many people fell into that group.

 

I always found that a strange term for the period as it was born out of a very much religious -- and, in fact, Catholic -- academic rigor that came from the rise of universities founded by the same "fat, corrupt bishops" that the Enlightenment thinkers would come to despise. And it went on to show that its own ideas were subject to the same corruption and abuse as all the other supposedly newfangled notions that came before it when they were put in the hands of a sociopath like Robespierre.

I have heard some references of the Jefferson Bible but have never read it so I cannot speak if it suggests Thomas Jefferson had some atheist leanings.

 

If what I have read over the years has been accurate, I think Jefferson could be classified as a Deist. His belief in God was strong, but he had particular problems with miraculous/supernatural events that are recorded in the traditional Bible.

If what I have read over the years has been accurate, I think Jefferson could be classified as a Deist. His belief in God was strong, but he had particular problems with miraculous/supernatural events that are recorded in the traditional Bible.

 

In his own mind, he'd read too much of John Stuart Mill, Francis Bacon and John Locke to be much bothered by the things he could not see.

As to the second point, lack of religious affiliation and atheism are two very different concepts. I can see the possibility of growth in those who claim no affiliation, but not in true atheism.

 

This guy is a proponent of the faithful w/o religion.

 

 

 

Father Pontifex responded with this video

 

If what I have read over the years has been accurate, I think Jefferson could be classified as a Deist. His belief in God was strong, but he had particular problems with miraculous/supernatural events that are recorded in the traditional Bible.

 

 

 

I just wonder if denying miracles and supernatural events associated with God is the first step towards atheism??

 

That is a question not me making an assertion.

I just wonder if denying miracles and supernatural events associated with God is the first step towards atheism??

 

That is a question not me making an assertion.

 

I've never thought of it in such a way, but it's a good question. My initial response is no, but I can understand the rationale for someone who might say yes.

I just wonder if denying miracles and supernatural events associated with God is the first step towards atheism??

 

That is a question not me making an assertion.

 

My question in response would be "What's the difference?" If one were to believe in a God that does not perform miracles, does not answer prayers or have an involvement in the daily lives of humans, then what is the practical difference between that God and no God at all? It seems to me that such a God isn't much more than a convenient answer for "What happened before the Big Bang?"

The discussion in this thread has been focused mostly about atheism, but I would think that there are more agnostics than atheists.

Also, the term "miracles" to many people is the same as magic.

 

The Bible was written in an ancient time by men who thought the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, and that bats were birds. One would think that if the writers were being guided by a higher power that those mistakes would not have occurred.

Maybe some if the errors have been made in the many translations over the years. The Bible mentions dragons and unicorns, for instance, but maybe through poor translations the meaning could have been an animal that actually existed. Anyway, I've never been able to take everything in the Bible literally. I think it has quite a bit of mythology in it. I mean, for the Great Flood to do what it says (cover the highest mountain in the world within 40 days of continuous rain) it would have to rain 8,700 inches per day---everywhere in the world at the same time. That is a diffucult to believe. It may have happened, but it would have had to been in a magical way, then all the water disappeared. It just confuses me.

The discussion in this thread has been focused mostly about atheism, but I would think that there are more agnostics than atheists.

Also, the term "miracles" to many people is the same as magic.

 

The Bible was written in an ancient time by men who thought the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, and that bats were birds. One would think that if the writers were being guided by a higher power that those mistakes would not have occurred.

Maybe some if the errors have been made in the many translations over the years. The Bible mentions dragons and unicorns, for instance, but maybe through poor translations the meaning could have been an animal that actually existed. Anyway, I've never been able to take everything in the Bible literally. I think it has quite a bit of mythology in it. I mean, for the Great Flood to do what it says (cover the highest mountain in the world within 40 days of continuous rain) it would have to rain 8,700 inches per day---everywhere in the world at the same time. That is a diffucult to believe. It may have happened, but it would have had to been in a magical way, then all the water disappeared. It just confuses me.

Similar to a supernatural birth to a virgin. But folks tend to believe that with no problem.

Similar to a supernatural birth to a virgin. But folks tend to believe that with no problem.

 

Not everyone.

I'm curious if this guy By Hemant Mehta, Special to CNN is a Christian, or other.

 

Wording in the article leads me to believe he's atheist.

Not everyone.

Nothing in faith includes everyone.

I just wonder if denying miracles and supernatural events associated with God is the first step towards atheism??

 

That is a question not me making an assertion.

 

There are "Christians" today that are being taught and that believe everything is explainable in the bible, there were no "miraculous" or supernatural happenings, such as the virgin birth or even Jesus being risen from the dead. Well, you can't really be a Christian if you don't believe those things, because then you don't believe that God is all powerful. And the Christian concept revolves almost completely, if not fully around our Savior Jesus Christ defeating death and rising from the grave after the 3rd day.

 

I have a guy I work with who is an Elder in his church (a Disciples of Christ Christian church) and he dismisses at least some of the miracles mentioned in the Bible, and has made mention that he may not believe Christ rose form the dead. That shocked me when I heard him discuss this, and it shocked me even more that he could be an Elder in a Christian church with that belief. Then again, I have also learned that many Christian churches have gone independent through the years, including the one I attend, because the Disciples of Christ organization started to have or promote what many call "liberal" non-biblical teachings, such as dismissing the virgin birth, Christ's resurrection, etc. I've not done any detailed research, just some discussions I have had with people in the know.