Why Young Christians are Leaving the Church

Author: Stronn

Posts

Total: 563
#91
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Castin
While people can have faith in science (I do), science is not faith based. It is evidence based. It doesn't require ardor or faith. It requires empirical proof. 
The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone. Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from. As I have said many times (using a Ravi Zacharius argument), atheists, agnostics, Christians all have a religious view in the sense the all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die. 

Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins. It builds on a particular model. In the past, many of the models have been replaced with a different paradigm.  Thomas Kuhn has documented some of these paradigm shifts. 
#92
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
It sure is. Faith without works is dead. It is not simply belief, it is not simply a belief in confidence. It is always accompanied by action.

Faithfulness.


#93
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stronn

If you don't love The Truth, critical thinking naturally leads to arbitrariness. If you love The Truth, your critical thinking in theory would perform the function you say it would.

What is the motivation for thinking critically?
The goal of critical thinking is to make better decisions. This includes decisions about what one believes.

Part of critical thinking is recognizing logical fallacies. One such fallacy is equivocation, which occurs when a key term in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one part of the argument and another meaning in another part. You commit this fallacy when you equate God with Truth, when people don't simply mean Truth when using the word God.



One of the attributes of the biblical God is His truthfulness (i.e., He does not lie. Another characteristic is His omniscience. He knows all things). So to equate God with truth is not wrong logically in the sense that He is true and He knows what really is. As many have said, to correctly think God's thoughts after Him is to think truly.
 

As Ethang5 pointed out, and I somewhat agree, young people are leaving the faith because of the culture of groupthink (that is mainly atheist in lifestyle and values) that has brainwashed them into believing a lie. It seeks to replace God with meaningless pleasure. 

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (NASB)
#94
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
 all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die

I'll give you the answers we can absolutely be sure of, all of us. In order: humans, we're all made of elements forged by exploded stars (specify the question a little more perhaps) , that's philosophy's department not science, and decomposition into the elements we are all comprised of. The questions that science should be answering, it has answered. They're of cold comfort but they are based on factual evidence. Not faith. 
#95
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
 all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die

I'll give you the answers we can absolutely be sure of, all of us. In order: humans, we're all made of elements forged by exploded stars (specify the question a little more perhaps) , that's philosophy's department not science, and decomposition into the elements we are all comprised of. The questions that science should be answering, it has answered. They're of cold comfort but they are based on factual evidence. Not faith. 

That appears to me to be a loose attempt at a mechanical conception of human beings, no more. I do not believe you can be absolutely sure of that and your worldview can't make sense of it (i.e., recreate how consciousness comes from something lacking it; how life stems from non-life).

Second, if you are wrong about science as your ultimate god and reason there are consequences. 

Third, origins is an interpretation of what happened. We are in the present looking back at the past and interpreting the data. We are limited in our knowledge and are speculating on the way things were. We build models and try to fit as many positives into those models as they will allow. The anomalies we put aside for a later date as long as there is not an overwhelming amount we continue to build on that paradigm. Once the anomalies become to many we abandon the model in search of a new one that better explains the conditions.   
#96
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone.
It is stunning that this incredibly stupid argument is still being used by theists. Hey pal, no one was there to witness the origins of the earth or how life started, that includes CHRISTIANS, hence Christianity does not know either. That's why this argument is futile and stupid.

Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from.
There is no slant in how scientists interpret evidence. The only slant we see is from theists and their hilariously absurd creationist fables.

Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins
So, what you're saying is that if police detectives and forensic scientists were not there to witness a crime, then the crime can never be solved. Again, that's how utterly stupid the argument.

#97
WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
3
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
3
-->
@Stronn
WHY ?  young humans are HYPNOTIZED and BRAINWASHED by pedophile psychopath MIND - BODY - LIFE molesters that use some wonder boy
GOD hoax they would have loved to RAPE themselves when he was YOUNG = JESUS...they just weren't around in that era...

If that is not enough the other GOD invented by psychotic mind and life RAPISTS = ALLAH is MANDATORY at the youngest age possible...these
humans must prepare to sacrifice themselves for the psychotic preaching clown at some Mosque....it is "the WILL of ALLAH" the psychotic preacher says to the CHILD...kill yourself and others who defy GOD !  


Isn't this just what every child NEEDS ?   to be trained in the art of MURDER and OPPRESSION for some Comic book GOD invention ?

GOD forbids OPEN MINDED thought and reasoning....SHUT UP and OBEY...murder all who defy JESUS or ALLAH....

How about the YOUTH of the WORLD gather and burn every Comic Book Bible/Quran and the Church / Temples that promote never ending
FEAR - INTIMIDATION - VIOLENCE ....JESUS and ALLAH are a DISGRACE to any intelligent HUMAN.....disgusting

#98
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone.
It is stunning that this incredibly stupid argument is still being used by theists. Hey pal, no one was there to witness the origins of the earth or how life started, that includes CHRISTIANS, hence Christianity does not know either. That's why this argument is futile and stupid.
What seems stupid by outward appearances or little thought can give a more suitable explanation of the universe and does. Whether you think Christianity explains the universe or not it certainly can make sense of it. I do not believe your worldview can when you peel back the veneer. 

Thus, the same charge I have put forth on many a thread I put forth here. Christianity can make sense of origins. Your worldview cannot. Now I invite you to try instead of blowing hot air.


Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from.
There is no slant in how scientists interpret evidence. The only slant we see is from theists and their hilariously absurd creationist fables.
Sure there is a bias or slant. It is a solely naturalistic approach to life as opposed to a supernaturalistic approach that starts the naturalistic ball rolling. The slant we see is from scientists who try to construct origins solely from the naturalistic. The questions are how and why such things happen? Science can't answer why. 


Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins
So, what you're saying is that if police detectives and forensic scientists were not there to witness a crime, then the crime can never be solved. Again, that's how utterly stupid the argument.


Try telling that to former forensic homicide detective Jim Wallace. I have read two of his books on the subject and in God's Crime Scene he lays out the investigation of the universe as he would a crime scene. Basically, he goes outside of the universe to explain the universe. The theory behind it is what he used to investigate homicide crime scenes himself. When investigating a potential crime scene and possible murder/homicide he would ask whether the evidence was better explained by what was in the room of the death scene (i.e., suicide) or whether something outside the room gave a better explanation (i.e., another person that left evidence of being in the room).   

#99
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
That appears to me to be a loose attempt at a mechanical conception of human beings, no more. I do not believe you can be absolutely sure of that and your worldview can't make sense of it (i.e., recreate how consciousness comes from something lacking it; how life stems from non-life).

No, I can't be absolutely sure of it because I wasn't present when it happened, but everything in my response is actually supported by research and evidence. It definitely makes sense, but you're not talking about making sense of something: you're talking about recreating something. Fair enough. I will consider your position once you recreate the process through which God created everything, or provide evidence of a similar caliber to that end. Me potentially being wrong lends no credence at all to your theory somehow being correct by default. 


Second, if you are wrong about science as your ultimate god and reason there are consequences. 
Is there though? I guess you're a faith supersedes works person, in which case, your god can suck it because that's an idiotic system. Guess I'll take my chances, seeing as my multiple blasphemies have not resulted in me being struck with boils or anything yet. You know this is Pascal's wager. It's a terrible argument for any god, much less yours. Also, if we're BOTH wrong, then there's consequences for you too, right? What are the chances you're wrong? By numbers, they're not very much different from mine. You're one god away from me. 

Third, origins is an interpretation of what happened. We are in the present looking back at the past and interpreting the data. We are limited in our knowledge and are speculating on the way things were. We build models and try to fit as many positives into those models as they will allow. The anomalies we put aside for a later date as long as there is not an overwhelming amount we continue to build on that paradigm. Once the anomalies become to many we abandon the model in search of a new one that better explains the conditions.   
Right. Except I don't see how this statement creates a model where there's any unknowable, unseeable, untestable, undemonstrable being that somehow created everything. If it did, I don't know how that model would suddenly default to being Jesus, either.  
#100
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Christianity can make sense of origins. 

Please show how. I bet your argument boils down to "Well, God did it. Therefore, sense." Please, please, please prove otherwise. 
#101
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Why would a scientist set out to prove a theory unless they believed (had faith) that it was true?
#102
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ronjs
THat's not really what scientists do. You know scientists spend most of their time trying to prove their (or someone else's) theory WRONG, right? This is how you effectively reduce confirmation bias. I just did this with my son and his science project about factors that affect the rate of change in bread (the project was about toast times). You can guess "the biggest bread will toast fastest", and then when it does, you might say "Eureka, I was right! Bigger bread toasts faster, project over." But you haven't done any real work. In order to be sure the size of the bread affects toast time, you have to look at the ingredients, for example, or the nutrition facts, and make sure that the bigger bread has exactly the same (by ratio) ingredient or nutritional info, for example, to see is there some chemical factor that may be present that affects the rate of change (spoiler, the bread with the highest number of carbs + sugars changes fastest) that might explain it. 

If we did it the other way, we would still think the sun went around the earth. To do it right, you take your own idea, and try really, really, really hard to prove it wrong. If you can't, then you can operate as if you're correct, until someone else proves it wrong or faulty. 

#103
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
And you can't prove God doesn't exist, because to even do so would disprove your argument.

Without even a belief in God, there is no such thing as science in any meaningful sense.



#104
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stronn
Theists often misunderstand why most atheists don't believe, saying it is because they hate God, or don't wish to obey Him, or don't want to follow religious morality. This article describes the real reason, which most atheists already knew.
This article doesn't describe the real reason. It gives partial reasons. Some of the other reasons include those you're claiming are not reasons.
 
There's always been young people leaving the church in the U.S. What the article isn't telling you is that many people return to church, particularly the one's who grew up in the church. Not all people in general have left the faith when they left church. Some who have come back have stated they've just found their faith that they didn't have before they left.

Militant atheists (the Oh my God, someone placed "The footprints in the sand inspirational" on government property" atheists) are stuck on the idea of recruiting the youth away from religion. Not through force, but through restrictive education. It's ironic since they often criticize Christian parents for teaching their children the Bible.

#105
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
If a thing cannot be demonstrated to exist and does not interact with the cosmos in any measurable or discernible way, then the job isn't proving that it ISN'T there. It's proving that it IS there. Not that you care about any of that, but for clarity's sake. Doing it your way makes you susceptible to pretty much anything, like "You can't prove this snake oil DOESN'T cure erectile dysfunction, you should buy a ton of it."
#106
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode

First of all, I bet I know more atheists than you, and in real life, not here. And none of the ones I know got into it because they "wanna sin!" or they're mad at god. Uniformly, they just don't have any reason to believe in god. And almost as uniformly, I find them more morally upstanding and WAY more egalitarian than the loudmouth Christian on Sundays. Saying an atheist is an atheist because they're mad at god is not only incorrect (much like me saying you don't believe in the One Ring because you're mad at Sauron). An atheists' assessment of god's moral character as a thuggish baby doesn't mean atheists are mad at god, any more than saying people who read Harry Potter books don't follow Voldemort because he's evil. It's simply a reading of the character in the book, it has nothing to do with them being real. 

There's always been young people leaving the church in the U.S. What the article isn't telling you is that many people return to church, particularly the one's who grew up in the church. Not all people in general have left the faith when they left church. Some who have come back have stated they've just found their faith that they didn't have before they left.
And some, like me, are still counted among the Catholics because I've not been excommunicated. My point is that leaving "the church" is not the same as "leaving the faith." Yeah, plenty of people leave and come back. But more and more people don't go in the first place, according to the numbers, and a subset of those people do so because they simply don't believe. Why is it that hard to get this idea down? 

but through restrictive education.
Please explain. 
#107
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
What about The Ultimate Reality existing isn't self evident?

If you doubt the existence of ultimate reality, it is invariably due to some superstition. That being the case, your unbelief can only be addressed through the examining of your beliefs concerning the matter. I am not going to be able to prove the existence of a superstition.


#108
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
 I am not going to be able to prove the existence of a superstition.

Yeah, this is kind of your problem, for sure. I'm not going down the nonsense ultimate reality hole again, not until you can demonstrate any reality that's not the one we currently experience. I don't doubt the existence of reality, what I doubt is your connecting the idea that time and space exist to any specific god at all. 
#109
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
We aren't having the same experience.

The reality I am experiencing is different than the reality you are experiencing.

So are you going to acknowledge this or make an appeal to solipsism?

#110
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
You and I share reality. Not experience. 
#111
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
First of all, I bet I know more atheists than you, and in real life, not here. And none of the ones I know got into it because they "wanna sin!" or they're mad at god. Uniformly, they just don't have any reason to believe in god. And almost as uniformly, I find them more morally upstanding and WAY more egalitarian than the loudmouth Christian on Sundays. Saying an atheist is an atheist because they're mad at god is not only incorrect (much like me saying you don't believe in the One Ring because you're mad at Sauron). An atheists' assessment of god's moral character as a thuggish baby doesn't mean atheists are mad at god, any more than saying people who read Harry Potter books don't follow Voldemort because he's evil. It's simply a reading of the character in the book, it has nothing to do with them being real. 
The point of my post was to state that there are multiple reasons why people leave the church. And yes, it includes people that are mad at God. And they maynever claim to be atheists. Not everyone that leaves church becomes an atheist. The OP gave restrictive reasons for leaving a church. And it generally centers around why a college student leaves the church.

Now these atheists you know that don't want to sin, are any of them not married? If so, do they vow sexual purity until marriage?



And some, like me, are still counted among the Catholics because I've not been excommunicated. My point is that leaving "the church" is not the
same as "leaving the faith." Yeah, plenty of people leave and come back. But more and more people don't go in the first place, according to the
numbers, and a subset of those people do so because they simply don't believe. Why is it that hard to get this idea down? 
I agree that leaving the church is not the same as leaving the faith. The rest of what you're saying I'm not understanding in relation to the topic of this thread. You'll have to expound I'm afraid.

Please explain.
The purpose of the Dover Trial was to determine whether teaching ID in public schools is constitutional. In and of itself, that poses a problem because it begs the question should we just avoid the possibility of a creator for political reasons? So, a lot of emphasis was placed on whether or not it qualifies as science, even though that's really a side issue pretty much meant to sidetrack the problem, and the real issue. There was a woman interviewed on the PBS Nova documentary on the trial who said something rather profound. She said intelligent design cannot be tested. There's truth in that. If a creator just simply lit a wick so to speak that sparked a big bang as an example, we can only test what we can observe in our natural plane. So even if we prevented exploring intelligent design in a science classroom, it doesn't mean it can't be presented in another dept. like Philosophy. But it is a problem for anyone concerned about people adopting a religion with a creator, or even just becoming theists. Maybe even deists. Of course if there is a God, then secularists are just fighting a losing battle as people are converting to religions, or becoming theists, deists, polytheists, etc.

The counter argument to this, and it's the very one you're just about to give me, is that we can only refer to intelligent design as a religion, therefore it can only be taught in a comparative religion course. And of course the suggestion is usually followed up by the course simply showing it's alleged primitive roots, it's negatives (so everyone can see how evil religion is), etc.







#112
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Would you say there is one reality?
#113
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Now these atheists you know that don't want to sin, are any of them not married? If so, do they vow sexual purity until marriage?
The atheists I know don't have the concept of sin, that's a strictly religious concept. The concept of monogamy is not strictly religious (indeed many people in the bible had more than one wife), and in the non-religious context, the idea is that you're considering what your behavior does to another person's feelings. Why would they vow sexual purity until marriage? Are you saying Christians don't have pre-marital sex? Because I've got news for you if so. :)


The purpose of the Dover Trial was to determine whether teaching ID in public schools is constitutional. 
Actually the argument I'd give you has nothing to do with religion. Teaching intelligent design is literally teaching nothing at all, because it holds no real explanatory power, and it cannot be demonstrated. It'd be like teaching alchemy. You say it yourself. It can't be tested, so how can it be TAUGHT? And yeah, I hate to tell you, the vast majority of ID proponents are religious folks. I promise you if we wanted to have an ID class in any department, philosophy even, wherein the public school taught that the intelligent designer was not Jesus but was Allah, there'd be an uproar. In either case, not including intelligent design in public science curricula is not about politics, it's about the usefulness of the thought process. You can literally teach the entirety of ID in five minutes. Does that sound like science? Or even worth studying in any way? We've had this discussion, it's one of my favorites, I'm up for more if you like, but while ID is partially rejected out of hand for religious implications, it's more easily rejected because it's bot untestable, undemonstrable, and pointless as far as educational value. 
#114
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I gave up God because he failed to talk about BMX. 
Other Reasons why young people may be leaving the church may include
Drugs. 
Video games. 
God isn't on the Internet.
Going to chuch isn't cool. ( according to other people at school ) 
Scared of being raped by priests. 
Because they have evolved into Atheists.
Because Asking Google things is almost second nature. ( ask Google 20 things then going back to asking god something messes with your head ) 
Maybe A brief moment of clarity. 
Because they haven't got enough cash to go to church. 
Kids may be liking to sleep in on Sunday more. 
Lots of things. 

But i think the long and short is.
Why bother going to church if you have the internet.
#115
WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
3
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
3
-->
@Stronn
The CHURCH is a BRAINWASHING and HYPNOSIS inducing concentration camp...as is the MOSQUE for the MUSLIM psychopath molester

2019 and beyond the Century of INFORMATION and TECHNOLOGY innovation...and the YOUTH realize INSTANTLY the Game of Thrones
played by the horrifically OLD - OBSOLETE - OPPRESSIVE Vampires of the CHURCH and MOSQUE...and they will NEVER CEDE to the
utter idiocy of these Comic Book PSYCHOPATHS who promote FEAR - INTIMIDATION - VIOLENCE in the name of some white JEW BOY
God invented hoax by the Roman Catholic Concentration Camp Church = JESUS

Worse is JESUS neighbor GOD invented RETARD = ALLAH who wants total domination with MURDER of all who do not accept him as GOD
of GODS !   

NO ....no way...ENOUGH murder and destruction has and is still being done in JESUS and ALLAH's name.....the YOUTH are done with these 
pathetic LIARS and CON ARTISTS behind these 2 absurd GOD hoaxes....

JESUS and ALLAH aren't even worthy of a place with  ZEUS and ODIN who will gladly incinerate both of these Middle East God hoaxes.... 

JESUS and ALLAH.....are being sent to Comic Book Mythology where no harm can or will be done in their names.....

THIS is what is meant by the "END of DAYS" in the Comic Book Bible....not of humanity and EARTH but of the GODS...

Good riddance JESUS and ALLAH along with all the lunatics that are enslaved to your HYPNOSIS HOAX and BRAINWASHING...
Gather CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS and EXTERMINATE each other so the rest of humanity can THRIVE without your HORROR SHOW

Soon enough the word JESUS and ALLAH will mean NOTHING..as it should be....get off this planet worthless SCUM...
#116
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Now these atheists you know that don't want to sin, are any of them not married? If so, do they vow sexual purity until marriage?
The atheists I know don't have the concept of sin, that's a strictly religious concept. The concept of monogamy is not strictly religious (indeed many people in the bible had more than one wife), and in the non-religious context, the idea is that you're considering what your behavior does to another person's feelings. Why would they vow sexual purity until marriage? Are you saying Christians don't have pre-marital sex? Because I've got news for you if so. :)
You're all over the map here. It doesn't matter if they have a concept of sin or not. It doesn't matter if they don't think abstinence before marriage is wrong. If anything, this supports my statement. We can actually just say, some people will not become Christians because the Bible presents a theme (sin) that they don't want anything to do with. If they became a Christian, they would have to  embrace the sin concept. Right?

What exactly is your point about multiple wives in the Bible?



And I have no idea why you think I'm saying Christians don't have pre-marital sex?





The purpose of the Dover Trial was to determine whether teaching ID in public schools is constitutional. 
Actually the argument I'd give you has nothing to do with religion. Teaching intelligent design is literally teaching nothing at all, because it holds no real explanatory power, and it cannot be demonstrated. It'd be like teaching alchemy. You say it yourself. It can't be tested, so how can it be TAUGHT? And yeah, I hate to tell you, the vast majority of ID proponents are religious folks. I promise you if we wanted to have an ID class in any department, philosophy even, wherein the public school taught that the intelligent designer was not Jesus but was Allah, there'd be an uproar. In either case, not including intelligent design in public science curricula is not about politics, it's about the usefulness of the thought process. You can literally teach the entirety of ID in five minutes. Does that sound like science? Or even worth studying in any way? We've had this discussion, it's one of my favorites, I'm up for more if you like, but while ID is partially rejected out of hand for religious implications, it's more easily rejected because it's bot untestable, undemonstrable, and pointless as far as educational value. 
First off, I should probably mention, it's not that I don't think that ID should be taught in science classes, but it seems the more unbiased or neutral
arguments for ID seem to come from philosophers like Antony Flew, or the atheist Thomas Nagel. Just because a creator cannot be tested doesn't mean there's no connection with science. I think the problem is better noted by those who admit that it would open up far too many questions. To say it doesn't teach anything is silly.

If say, a geologist discovers a strange rock, not being sure if it's shape was naturally produced, or was it carved into an instrument, he may have to
broaden his field to include archaeology if it's deemed a possibility. Who were the carvers? If that's not of interest to the geologist, at that point they may dismiss any further examination/study of said rock-carved-into-knife. Now while that may be insignificant to the geologist, it may be of great interest to an archaeologist. In the same fashion, the existence of a creator could have huge implications. And if ID was included in any educational department, just like the archaeologist's interest in the carved artifact, there would be a lot of interest in the designer. Who he might be, etc. And that's dangerous for people who are filled with religious paranoia.


And no, there wouldn't be an uproar if ID were taught because if taught right there would be no teaching on who the creator is. The only uproar would be from natural evolutionists who shun the idea.


And the fact that most ID proponents are religious is a silly argument. That's like me saying we shouldn't consider naturalistic evolution because most biologists are atheist and agnostic, therefore biased.








Topic's author
#117
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@RoderickSpode
This article doesn't describe the real reason. It gives partial reasons. Some of the other reasons include those you're claiming are not reasons.
 What are you talking about? Of course the article gives the real reason, plain as day. It couldn't be simpler.

"...most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true."

Saying that they are mad at God is absurd, since they don't believe in God.

There's always been young people leaving the church in the U.S. What the article isn't telling you is that many people return to church, particularly the one's who grew up in the church. Not all people in general have left the faith when they left church. Some who have come back have stated they've just found their faith that they didn't have before they left.
Not all have left the faith when they leave the church, sure, but it is clear that most have, unless you think no longer believing a faith is true is somehow different than leaving the faith.

Militant atheists (the Oh my God, someone placed "The footprints in the sand inspirational" on government property" atheists) are stuck on the idea of recruiting the youth away from religion. Not through force, but through restrictive education. It's ironic since they often criticize Christian parents for teaching their children the Bible.
Militant atheists are a small minority of all atheists. Most atheists just want to be left alone by religion, and that includes teaching pseudoscience to their children in a thinly veiled attempt to indoctrinate them.

Topic's author
#118
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@RoderickSpode
Whether ID is science or religion was not at all a side issue in the Dover trial. It was the central issue. Mandating a particular religious view be taught alongside actual science in a biology class is clearly unconstitutional. If ID's proponents had instead wanted it taught in a philosophy class, that would be an entire different matter.



#119
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
According to ID ALL rocks are designed so it's not possible to compare one rock with another in order to determine design. Paley's watch, in ID, is no more designed than the rock on which it was found ergo ID has no explanatory value.
#120
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stronn
What are you talking about? Of course the article gives the real reason, plain as day. It couldn't be simpler.

"...most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true."

Saying that they are mad at God is absurd, since they don't believe in God.
You missed my point. The article doesn't give an exhaustive list of why people leave the church. You pretty much claimed it does, and that any other reason provided is a misunderstanding. Yes, in addition to reasons mentioned on the list, some stop going to church for multiple other reasons including being mad at God. Some stop going because they don't want to change their lifestyle. I know. I was a backslider for many years. Bars, nightclubs, people involved in adult entertainment, etc., contain people who are believers. Some won't admit it until they get drunk, and give a confession, sometimes in tears.

But your topic is not really about why people leave the church. You like that particular article because you feel it bests promotes the real idea you want to convey that humans are leaving the church due to progressive intelligence, critical thinking, etc. And then everything else is some misunderstanding.

Not all have left the faith when they leave the church, sure, but it is clear that most have, unless you think no longer believing a faith is true is somehow different than leaving the faith.

Are you still talking about young people now, or including everyone? It might be the case with young people because they're the most impressionable. If you're talking about everyone, that's a different story.