No Religion - Nearly 10 Million Australians.

[TransmutingSoul]

Why does it feel as if you're avoiding answering me directly? How exactly does me having faith that the 'true reality is 2+2=5 and you having faith that the 'true reality' is 2+2=9 going to 'help humanity' in any way?

It seems to me that what would help humanity the most at this point in time is if we could find more ways in which we can agree on a common reality, instead of arguing about whether or not serious problems we face like climate change are even real. We're on the verge of making this planet uninhabitable for humanity in the near future, mostly because we've become a society where a person's 'faith' that the danger isn't real is viewed by far too many as being just as legitimate as the verifiable evidence. We're doomed if we continue to think that everyone can have their own 'truth' about real-world issues. Mathematics fails to be a useful tool once we decide 2+2= whatever anyone has faith that it equals.

We agree on the obvious, we explore what is yet to know.

So we agree 2 + 2 = 4.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Not my plan, not my will - let go of will, let go of plans, live in the present, enjoy now.

How is that going to work for the next generations?

How does that work if you live in Ukraine?

Regards Tony

 

[InChrist]

I agree with you about the problem.

My own view is that everyone needs to pitch in, individually, locally, nationally, internationally, regardless of race color or creed ─ since positive action is important and race color and creed are not.

I agree that everyone should be doing their part, but sadly there are many who don’t feel this way. Some people are simply apathetic or too preoccupied with self interest to care. Or many corporate entities only care about profit over anything else.

 

[QuestioningMind]

We agree on the obvious, we explore what is yet to know.

So we agree 2 + 2 = 4.

Regards Tony

You claim we agree now, but that's not what you said in a previous post.

How can faith be a reliable source of truth when I can have faith that 2+2=5 and you can have faith that 2+2=9 and in reality 2+2+4?
I can offer an observation, that in the reality I have come to consider, that 2 plus 2 has much, much more than one answer of 4 and even the number 4 has multiple implications/meanings.

So what is reliable truth? What if this life is the illusion?

You clearly rejected the notion that 2+2=4 is the reality, suggesting that 2+2 has much more than one answer, as if my faith that the answer is 5 and your faith that the answer is 9 are just as legitimate.

I'm still not seeing how having this 'faith' is supposed to be 'helping humanity' in any way

 

[Heyo]

I can offer an observation, that in the reality I have come to consider, that 2 plus 2 has much, much more than one answer of 4 and even the number 4 has multiple implications/meanings.

So what is reliable truth? What if this life is the illusion?

Regards Tony

I can offer an observation that you don't have to think about coming to an agreement with anybody over abstract things when you can't agree that 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[rational experiences]

The real conscious review whether rich or poor.....
I'm lazy. Let someone else do the work just give me money.

Humans conscious warning about when greedy rich man's choices becomes mind conscious possession. From following his brother science mind designer causes under his leadership.

Is actually occurring.

So humans who know natural life involved families toil. Not the very young not the old...everyone else toiled for mutual gain sanctity.

Is where we aren't at this moment.

Is return to family morality our human teaching.

Machines for a start aren't involved fact.

Hawkings warning...don't let machines takeover life.

New theists humans are part machine or Ai...I say they are as designer man wanting it as a designed caused by force another machine is actuality to make more money.

Designer man gave designer man his actual answer following science terms not human.

As science owns dead non existing terms actually first. Machines.

 

[blü 2]

So what is reliable truth?

I use what's called the "correspondence definition" of truth: truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (the world external to the self).

It has the great advantage of providing the most objective test we know for determining what is true.

What if this life is the illusion?

There's no examinable evidence to suggest that's the case. There's no examinable evidence suggesting that there's any alternative to "this life" either.

So it's not a question that concerns me.

You clearly rejected the notion that 2+2=4 is the reality, suggesting that 2+2 has much more than one answer

2+2 = 4 in ordinary arithmetic, in which we count by tens ("to base 10"). But if we count to base 3 then 2+2=11, and if we ask what is 2+2 modulo 3 then the answer is 1.

But it's very much the case that as long we make ourselves clear about what we're doing, there's no problem.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You claim we agree now, but that's not what you said in a previous post.

How can faith be a reliable source of truth when I can have faith that 2+2=5 and you can have faith that 2+2=9 and in reality 2+2+4?
I can offer an observation, that in the reality I have come to consider, that 2 plus 2 has much, much more than one answer of 4 and even the number 4 has multiple implications/meanings.

So what is reliable truth? What if this life is the illusion?

You clearly rejected the notion that 2+2=4 is the reality, suggesting that 2+2 has much more than one answer, as if my faith that the answer is 5 and your faith that the answer is 9 are just as legitimate.

I'm still not seeing how having this 'faith' is supposed to be 'helping humanity' in any way

You are trying to tie life to single tangible answers. I see life is more than we can know.

So we can agree to agree on what we do know.

If that does not include God for you, that it is not interesting for you, then there is no point discussing that part of my life with you.

We can talk about the world, but I will offer it does not have a lot to offer me, unless I look at it as God has shown.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I can offer an observation that you don't have to think about coming to an agreement with anybody over abstract things when you can't agree that 2 + 2 = 4.

I would offer look again at what I am offering, I did not say that 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

I would offer look again at what I am offering, I did not say that 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong.

Regards Tony

When I go to an architect for a new home and he starts the conversation by questioning if homes are even useful or necessary, I'm out.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

When I go to an architect for a new home and he starts the conversation by questioning if homes are even useful or necessary, I'm out.

All the best.

Regards Tony

 

[Bathos Logos]

Yes I did. Thus, that is why we don't know how the future will go. in order to make a prediction, we must have a statistical model, not just a belief. Hope you understand.

Understood. How about this then: it is my opinion that, based on the current trend, in tandem with the fact that communication of information and methods of information verification have increased in availability to the general public of most countries by some great multiple in the past few decades, will see religious adherence waning quite a bit more than has been statistically usual in times prior to these.

 

[Heyo]

Understood. How about this then: it is my opinion that, based on the current trend, in tandem with the fact that communication of information and methods of information verification have increased in availability to the general public of most countries by some great multiple in the past few decades, will see religious adherence waning quite a bit more than has been statistically usual in times prior to these.

You could have just said:

 

[firedragon]

Understood. How about this then: it is my opinion that, based on the current trend, in tandem with the fact that communication of information and methods of information verification have increased in availability to the general public of most countries by some great multiple in the past few decades, will see religious adherence waning quite a bit more than has been statistically usual in times prior to these.

The opinion is based on wishful thinking. It's bias. I don't mean you intend to be bias, but it's a bias. Because a religious person might say that because of easy access to information I am becoming stronger in my theological positions.

So it's just an exchange of biases. one has to at least explore both sides of the coin. At least. But even that is at an individual level, not in making predictions for the future.

 

[firedragon]

You could have just said:

Children who pretend to have big feet do that kind of thing.

 

[Bathos Logos]

The opinion is based on wishful thinking. It's bias. I don't mean you intend to be bias, but it's a bias. Because a religious person might say that because of easy access to information I am becoming stronger in my theological positions.

Your example here of the theist, however, would be a personal anecdote. While we have fairly steady data over the past years indicating steps leading away from religious affiliation. So, while your person stating "I am becoming stronger in my theological positions" would be based only on a single, personal experience, my opinion is currently being based on data of a much larger set.

So it's just an exchange of biases. one has to at least explore both sides of the coin. At least. But even that is at an individual level, not in making predictions for the future.

I see... so one can't even state their opinion or speculate about what might happen in the future anymore without major evidence that almost literally proves that they will be correct, then? Is that where you're going with this? That would mean, of course, that in order to "explore the [other side] of the coin", one is going to establish a pretty strong case, right out of the gate, to even begin talking about it.

I think we both know I am completely capable of voicing my opinion in this vein, and don't need to answer to your requests for it to be "unbiased" before I do so. No one does. Do you honestly think I would be found saying this same thing that you are saying to me to a theist who wanted to posit that the future might hold even more fervent and widespread belief for some reason they had brought to the table? Do you think I would be found telling them: "Well, that's just based on wishful thinking, and is a bias on your part." No. I wouldn't tell them that. I would literally try to refute them, if possible, with data that shows the contrary. And if the data wasn't my favor? Why would I be speaking at all against the opinion if the data wasn't in my favor? That's what you're doing here, and it looks desperate, to be completely honest.

 

[firedragon]

Your example here of the theist, however, would be a personal anecdote.

Just a bias.

While we have fairly steady data over the past years indicating steps leading away from religious affiliation.

No your "we" group does not have that so called "data".

So, while your person stating "I am becoming stronger in my theological positions" would be based only on a single, personal experience, my opinion is currently being based on data of a much larger set.

No it;s not. It;s just your personal faith.

I see... so one can't even state their opinion or speculate about what might happen in the future anymore without major evidence that almost literally proves that they will be correct, then? Is that where you're going with this? That would mean, of course, that in order to "explore the [other side] of the coin", one is going to establish a pretty strong case, right out of the gate, to even begin talking about it.

I think we both know I am completely capable of voicing my opinion in this vein, and don't need to answer to your requests for it to be "unbiased" before I do so. No one does. Do you honestly think I would be found saying this same thing that you are saying to me to a theist who wanted to posit that the future might hold even more fervent and widespread belief for some reason they had brought to the table? Do you think I would be found telling them: "Well, that's just based on wishful thinking, and is a bias on your part." No. I wouldn't tell them that. I would literally try to refute them, if possible, with data that shows the contrary. And if the data wasn't my favor? Why would I be speaking at all against the opinion if the data wasn't in my favor? That's what you're doing here, and it looks desperate, to be completely honest.

What evidence? I mean other than ad hominem and your faith statements, what is your evidence?

 

[QuestioningMind]

You are trying to tie life to single tangible answers. I see life is more than we can know.

So we can agree to agree on what we do know.

If that does not include God for you, that it is not interesting for you, then there is no point discussing that part of my life with you.

We can talk about the world, but I will offer it does not have a lot to offer me, unless I look at it as God has shown.

Regards Tony

Interesting... so you claim that 'faith' is the answer to 'helping humanity', but you can't explain HOW faith is supposed to be helpful - especially after I pointed out just how UN-helpful faith can be - and in the end the world doesn't have a lot to offer you... which makes me wonder what 'help' you think humanity needs.

 

[Bathos Logos]

No your "we" group does not have that so called "data".

The "we" was more "the human race". As in, any time someone is found to be doing surveys on religious affiliations in recent memory, the results have all skewed toward either "no religion" or "spiritual but not religious". That's what I was saying. If you have a recent study that has numbers going in some other direction, please, by all means, present it.

What evidence? I mean other than ad hominem and your faith statements, what is your evidence?

There are plenty of articles I could link to easily. But I think the most telling piece is this site:

WVS Database

This site literally allows you to select the countries you want to see, and filter to exact questions that were asked in the survey, look at it by year in time spreads, etc. For example, since I believe you to be an adherent of Islam (please do correct me if I am wrong), I went in and selected a time series display on the data obtained over several years for the question: "Please indicate how important these items are in your life: Religion". Here are the results of the survey from Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt:

Now, because I am a completely honest person, and want this to be entirely transparent, you can note that Pakistan, in particular, gained over the period of 1994 to present - gaining from 80% to 90% and apparently holding steady. Jordan fell only slightly during the time, and is possibly on an upward curve now, Egypt is pretty much steady, and Iran and Iraq show a continuous level of decline.

So, not much to see here, and I wouldn't have expected too much anyway, to be honest. I mean, searching up the "major religion of Pakistan" for example yields this:

The constitution establishes Islam as the state religion and requires all provisions of the law to be consistent with Islam.

So... no surprises there.

But then, looking at a smattering of other countries from around the world (I basically did a random grab of countries I thought it would be interesting to see the data on), we have this:

In that series, I think only Germany gained anything substantial over the displayed period. France was also pretty steady, though if you look at top 2 box, instead of just a glance at top box, there is some decline and a very slight bounce back there. But mostly it is decline across the board.

You should play with the site, and see what you can come up with.

At any rate, there have been so very many articles on this topic of worldwide religious decline, and any number of threads on various sties posting articles that reference studies, that I would have thought this sort of thing to be common knowledge on these types of boards by now. To the point that you asking for "evidence" seemed kind of funny. The numbers show decline. Therefore they (currently) favor my opinion over an opinion that would cite a worldwide shift toward more religious people and adherence based on what could only be found to be very myopic incomplete research or evidence. Like if you wanted to limit your research to Pakistan, Germany, France, Egypt and Jordan from the above selection of countries.

Just go to the site and do a random selection of countries on your own and see what you get. If the results end up showing that religion is increasing substantially I'd be interested to see what you've got.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Interesting... so you claim that 'faith' is the answer to 'helping humanity', but you can't explain HOW faith is supposed to be helpful - especially after I pointed out just how UN-helpful faith can be - and in the end the world doesn't have a lot to offer you... which makes me wonder what 'help' you think humanity needs.

The answer is simple. The world needs the Message of Baha’u’llah.

That Message is the answer.

Regards Tony