Church attendance continues to plummet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

But you don’t rebut any of the points I made, or quoted, or from the link?

Correct. Because pp can't rebut your points, they instead express concern about your obvious failure to read the Angelic Doctor in Latin (or a good English translation).

Actually, I certainly could systematically rebut the anti-Aquinas poster’s derivative and ill-informed arguments taken from other people’s websites. Thomas in fact rebuts many/most of them in the relevant portion of the Summa. Unfortunately, the rebuttal would be very time consuming, require a ton of index finger typing, and very likely be over the head of anyone without at least an undergraduate degree (maybe a minor) in philosophy.

So I decided to stop playing. Non-believers are free to non-believe. I’m looking at the sun and the ocean right now. I don’t think they happened by accident.

The intellectual snob returns to insult the rest of us. Be honest, as your religion commands -- You decided to bow out because you knew you were losing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

But you don’t rebut any of the points I made, or quoted, or from the link?

Correct. Because pp can't rebut your points, they instead express concern about your obvious failure to read the Angelic Doctor in Latin (or a good English translation).

Actually, I certainly could systematically rebut the anti-Aquinas poster’s derivative and ill-informed arguments taken from other people’s websites. Thomas in fact rebuts many/most of them in the relevant portion of the Summa. Unfortunately, the rebuttal would be very time consuming, require a ton of index finger typing, and very likely be over the head of anyone without at least an undergraduate degree (maybe a minor) in philosophy.

So I decided to stop playing. Non-believers are free to non-believe. I’m looking at the sun and the ocean right now. I don’t think they happened by accident.

Then again, maybe people would have good reason to disagree with you, despite their lowly, limited educational status.

Pride goeth before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

…Who are you? What is your background? What can I read to get to your level of philosophical and theological knowledge? How do you get to the level of understanding that you clearly demonstrate in this thread?

I’m a practicing Catholic starting to read Plotinus’ writings (started from Plato and Aristotle and trying to work chronologically through western philosophy with Catholic theology in mind), but I am basically ‘plodding through Plotinus’ and philosophy unimpressively in general like a tired, old cow. Do you have any general advice?

Also props to both you and the other debater for being so professional about a potentially charged topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

…Who are you? What is your background? What can I read to get to your level of philosophical and theological knowledge? How do you get to the level of understanding that you clearly demonstrate in this thread?

I’m a practicing Catholic starting to read Plotinus’ writings (started from Plato and Aristotle and trying to work chronologically through western philosophy with Catholic theology in mind), but I am basically ‘plodding through Plotinus’ and philosophy unimpressively in general like a tired, old cow. Do you have any general advice?

Also props to both you and the other debater for being so professional about a potentially charged topic.

Not pp, but it sounds like you must first read the Angelic Doctor before they would consider communicating with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1175452002/church-closings-religious-affiliation

Wow - "Just 16% of Americans say religion is the most important thing in their life, according to a new report released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute.".

"The sharp uptick in the number of younger Americans with no religious affiliation — a group known as the "nones" — is the major driver in a seismic shift in the religious landscape, says Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University and author of The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going."

What are your thoughts?

I think there are too many centers of organized religions, they provide limited services but preachers, rabbi and Imams eat up too much money. Its an industry. People of all religions are tired of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our church is growing and thriving. We attract people of all ages.

People who attend church regularly tend to be healthier and happier according to research.

Our church is welcoming and inclusive of GTLBQ +, immigrants, young, old and anyone who feels attracted to our services, spiritual practice groups, communit dinners, smaller social activities, forums, Bible studies, and extensive community service work.

Church is still an important part of life for many us.

However I can see why many people may have stopped attending church in recent years during the pandemic and extreme exploitation of religion for cynical political purposes and hate mongering.

Which church is this? It sounds great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1175452002/church-closings-religious-affiliation

Wow - "Just 16% of Americans say religion is the most important thing in their life, according to a new report released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute.".

"The sharp uptick in the number of younger Americans with no religious affiliation — a group known as the "nones" — is the major driver in a seismic shift in the religious landscape, says Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University and author of The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going."

What are your thoughts?

I think there are too many centers of organized religions, they provide limited services but preachers, rabbi and Imams eat up too much money. It's an industry. People of all religions are tired of that.

It is an industry, and has been all along, with real estate, and staff that need to be paid, and staff that need to have educational credentials. There are lots of volunteers, too, but clergy have to make a living, after all, and pay off their student load debts and other debts just like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1175452002/church-closings-religious-affiliation

Wow - "Just 16% of Americans say religion is the most important thing in their life, according to a new report released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute.".

"The sharp uptick in the number of younger Americans with no religious affiliation — a group known as the "nones" — is the major driver in a seismic shift in the religious landscape, says Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University and author of The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going."

What are your thoughts?

I think there are too many centers of organized religions, they provide limited services but preachers, rabbi and Imams eat up too much money. Its an industry. People of all religions are tired of that.

Do you have any reputable citations about the money preachers, rabbis, and imams “eat up?”

Who are you speaking for besides yourself?

You are speaking for Christians, Jewish, and Muslim people? How do you have that authority?

What is your religion and your religious leadership training and education?

[Anonymous]

Clergy:

Employment - 50,790

Mean Hourly Wage - $27.51

Mean Annual Wage - $57,230

Religious Organizations:

Employment - 22,750

Mean Hourly Wage - $26.77

Annual Wage Mean - $55,680

https://justchurchjobs.com/resources/pastor-salary-guide

A pastor, rabbi, or imam works 24 hours per day, and all holidays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1175452002/church-closings-religious-affiliation

Wow - "Just 16% of Americans say religion is the most important thing in their life, according to a new report released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute.".

"The sharp uptick in the number of younger Americans with no religious affiliation — a group known as the "nones" — is the major driver in a seismic shift in the religious landscape, says Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University and author of The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going."

What are your thoughts?

I think there are too many centers of organized religions, they provide limited services but preachers, rabbi and Imams eat up too much money. Its an industry. People of all religions are tired of that.

Do you have any reputable citations about the money preachers, rabbis, and imams “eat up?”

Who are you speaking for besides yourself?

You are speaking for Christians, Jewish, and Muslim people? How do you have that authority?

What is your religion and your religious leadership training and education?

pp is expressing their opinion - no religious leadership training, "authority" or specific education needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1175452002/church-closings-religious-affiliation

Wow - "Just 16% of Americans say religion is the most important thing in their life, according to a new report released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute.".

"The sharp uptick in the number of younger Americans with no religious affiliation — a group known as the "nones" — is the major driver in a seismic shift in the religious landscape, says Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University and author of The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going."

What are your thoughts?

I think there are too many centers of organized religions, they provide limited services but preachers, rabbi and Imams eat up too much money. Its an industry. People of all religions are tired of that.

Do you have any reputable citations about the money preachers, rabbis, and imams “eat up?”

Who are you speaking for besides yourself?

You are speaking for Christians, Jewish, and Muslim people? How do you have that authority?

What is your religion and your religious leadership training and education?

pp is expressing their opinion - no religious leadership training, "authority" or specific education needed.

Wow so pp can just speak for 3 entire religious communities?

Is pp a member of any of these religious communities? They won’t answer.

Now they have no statistics, data, facts, etc. They just speak for 3 religions which are compromised of billions of people and then it’s taken as fact and even defended as valid by another poster merely because it’s an opinion.

newsflash: a person who speaks for 3 entire religions is probably off their rocker.

There are 2.6 billion Christians

There are 1.8 billion Muslims

There are 16 million Jewish people

And pp just casually threw their opinion out speaking for all of them.

Who are they to be the spokesperson for all 3 religions? That is extremely arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1175452002/church-closings-religious-affiliation

Wow - "Just 16% of Americans say religion is the most important thing in their life, according to a new report released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute.".

"The sharp uptick in the number of younger Americans with no religious affiliation — a group known as the "nones" — is the major driver in a seismic shift in the religious landscape, says Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University and author of The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going."

What are your thoughts?

I think there are too many centers of organized religions, they provide limited services but preachers, rabbi and Imams eat up too much money. Its an industry. People of all religions are tired of that.

Do you have any reputable citations about the money preachers, rabbis, and imams “eat up?”

Who are you speaking for besides yourself?

You are speaking for Christians, Jewish, and Muslim people? How do you have that authority?

What is your religion and your religious leadership training and education?

pp is expressing their opinion - no religious leadership training, "authority" or specific education needed.

Wow so pp can just speak for 3 entire religious communities?

Is pp a member of any of these religious communities? They won’t answer.

Now they have no statistics, data, facts, etc. They just speak for 3 religions which are compromised of billions of people and then it’s taken as fact and even defended as valid by another poster merely because it’s an opinion.

newsflash: a person who speaks for 3 entire religions is probably off their rocker.

There are 2.6 billion Christians

There are 1.8 billion Muslims

There are 16 million Jewish people

And pp just casually threw their opinion out speaking for all of them.

Who are they to be the spokesperson for all 3 religions? That is extremely arrogant.

Are you sure you want to create a "facts, data and evidence" gate for this forum?

I think that would be welcomed by many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, people are deserting yacht clubs in droves.

Yacht clubs!

You can't make this stuff up.

I spy a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What are your thoughts?"

My thoughts are that it's not exclusive to religious participation. Americans are leading increasingly lonely and isolated lives. They're not just not attending church, they're pulling back from Ruritans, ladies clubs, book groups, bowling leagues, golf leagues, yacht clubs, country clubs, DAR, union halls, VFW clubs and events, hunting clubs...

There is basically one exception. Those of us who have minor children and sufficient financial means spend a lot of our time driving and watching our kids play soccer or practice dance routines.

Pretty much anything that was once a staple of American working and middle class community life is struggling for membership or dying. Never before in the history of humankind have so many people been living alone. It's an enormous mental health problem that's rapidly worsening. So we spend a lot of time online in silo'd groups getting fed algorithms that are scientifically designed to make us angrier about whatever we're inclined to be angry about.

DCUM will love to snicker at the idea of churches declining. For our family, ours is a major source of community, friendship, service work, youth activities and friends, and so on.

Since when are DAR, yacht clubs, golf leagues staples of the American working and middle class? Even service clubs have traditionally been the purview of those with enough excess capital to fund them

The PP described a range of organizations where people formed bonds. I grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood, and my parents were involved in community service organizations (and church). The point is that our rejection of institutions leaves a vacuum and impacts people of all economic circumstances, who now find themselves lonely and disconnected.

+1. I guess it's easier to snark about yacht clubs than it is actually to read and think about the comment, but it was actually normal for people from middle and working class backgrounds to be active in their churches or be in a bowling league or something like that. We have fewer of those bonds than we used to.

I use my time differently these days. I’ve joined FREE walking groups, travel more, and entertain often. I support needy families directly. I’m not lonely, I’m busy. I don’t need a church to take 10%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, people are deserting yacht clubs in droves.

Yacht clubs!

You can't make this stuff up.

I spy a troll.

You spy a troll? Like one who quotes a post from 2 1/2 months ago and doesn't use the quote button so as to hide the context?

I think you are correct.