• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds

Any regime that supresses freedom of thought, expression, and invention ends up dealing with a revolution in the long-term.
 
May be my fellow atheists can show their faces in public now. :mrgreen:

Maybe atheists can actually start *gasp* being represented nationally

Source [Wikipedia | Religious affiliation in the United States Senate]

The following list compares reported religious affiliations of U. S. Senators to religious statistics of the demographics of the United States:

  • International Church of the Foursquare Gospel are represented by 1% of the Senate for 0.1% of the population (10.00x)
  • Jews are represented by 14% of the Senate for 1.4% of the population. (10.00x)
  • Episcopalians are represented by 7% of the Senate for 1.8% of the population. (5.55x)
  • Latter-Day Saints are represented by 6% of the Senate for 1.4% of the population. (4.29x)
  • Presbyterians are represented by 14% of the Senate for 2.8% of the population. (2.50x)
  • Methodists are represented by 8% of the Senate for 7.2% of the population. (1.11x)
  • Catholics are represented by 26% of the Senate for 25.9% of the population. (1.00x)
  • Lutherans are represented by 3% of the Senate for 4.6% of the population. (0.65x)
  • Baptists are represented by 8% of the Senate for 17.2% of the population. (0.46x)
    [*] Unaligned are represented by 0% of the Senate for 15.0% of the population. (0.000000000x)

I wouldn't count on it, though
 
Last edited:
so it's indicative to you that religion is correct because it's primarily practiced by people squatting in huts without electricity?

god forbid we abandon the "successful" Calcutta model instead of tried and failed Copenhagen model.

Not at all. It is indicative to me that a religion is correct if through prayer God reveals directly to an individual it is true. The scriptures teach the meek and honest in heart will have their prayers answered. To the arrogant its foolishness. There rich and poor individuals who have had revelation, the Mormons and Jews are hardly people living in huts. Higher wealth and "education" can be a weakness to some people towards pride.
 
I'll admit it. I shed a tear. The poor people around the world. In other words the group that is made up in overwhelming number by what we in Western society consider : the uneducated, the uncivilized, the miserable. Are the people who have faith in God. Is that an argument as to why we should believe in God? Because the majority of this planet which is made up of unfortunate sops who've never seen anything but suffering believe in God? Pretty strong. I mean if I'd never eaten anything other then dried corn and rice I'd probably believe in God to. Why not? I'd have nothing else to hope for other then a happy ending when my suffering is over. On the other hand if I had been born in say Sweden and had enjoyed at the very least a balanced diet with the essentials. Then I wouldn't have as much a need to focus on what is at the proverbial end of the road. It sounds to me like you just made an argument for how the human spirit always seems to able to imagine a reward after hardship.

What an absurd non-factual argument. The richest and most educated among us are devoutly religious and many being Catholic.

This is as absurd as suggesting that Governments can confiscate the wealth of the people who create jobs and re-distributes them to the poor to elevate their status.
 
Do you have any statistics to back that up?

With little or no effort let's start with John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama, and Joe Lieberman.....would you like me to go on? John Forbes, General Patton, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice......the list is very long to the rich, highly educated and powerful who have faith in religion.

Good lord, to even ask that question speaks volumes to your apparent willful ignorance; I know you are smarter than this so why troll?
 
With little or no effort let's start with John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama, and Joe Lieberman.....would you like me to go on? John Forbes, General Patton, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice......the list is very long to the rich, highly educated and powerful who have faith in religion.

That hardly backs up your claim. You only listed 7 people there.

Good lord, to even ask that question speaks volumes to your apparent willful ignorance; I know you are smarter than this so why troll?

I asked you a simple question. How is that trolling?
 
That hardly backs up your claim. You only listed 7 people there.

I asked you a simple question. How is that trolling?

Yes, it was just seven people among the millions who do not fit the warped and absurd suggestion by Hatuey that only the poor sobs of society can have religions faith and thus be used by those in power.

Let’s once again try to get you to focus like a laser on the original farcical statement as you attempt to project:

Originally Posted by Hatuey
… the uneducated, the uncivilized, the miserable. Are the people who have faith in God. Is that an argument as to why we should believe in God? Because the majority of this planet which is made up of unfortunate sops who've never seen anything but suffering believe in God? Pretty strong.


I guess when you troll you also refuse to focus on the thread topic and premise of your fellow trolls who attempt to lower the thread debate to the lowest common denominator.

Carry on; your clown like attempts to avoid facts is not even amusing any more.
 
Yes, it was just seven people among the millions who do not fit the warped and absurd suggestion by Hatuey that only the poor sobs of society can have religions faith and thus be used by those in power.

I don't think that he was trying to overgeneralize, though. He made an assertion that actually made sense and you replied by making a generalization without backing it up. I was merely asking for proof of your assertion, which you've yet to provide.

Let’s once again try to get you to focus like a laser on the original farcical statement as you attempt to project:

Originally Posted by Hatuey
… the uneducated, the uncivilized, the miserable. Are the people who have faith in God. Is that an argument as to why we should believe in God? Because the majority of this planet which is made up of unfortunate sops who've never seen anything but suffering believe in God? Pretty strong.


I guess when you troll you also refuse to focus on the thread topic and premise of your fellow trolls who attempt to lower the thread debate to the lowest common denominator.

Like I said, I asked a simple question. I didn't attack you and I wasn't trying to troll. If you have no interest in answering my question without insulting me just let me know and I'll stop trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Carry on; your clown like attempts to avoid facts is not even amusing any more.

Dude, I just asked you a question. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Dude, I just asked you a question. :roll:

You asked a pretty stupid question in your typically troll like fashion without adding any substance to the debate.

How profound that you wallow so deeply in denial as to avoid something that is so painfully obvious. But then we all know the purpose of your troll like behavior don’t we?

Carry on. :2wave:
 
You asked a pretty stupid question in your typically troll like fashion without adding any substance to the debate.

How profound that you wallow so deeply in denial as to avoid something that is so painfully obvious. But then we all know the purpose of your troll like behavior don’t we?

Carry on. :2wave:

How is it stupid to ask you to back up your assertions with facts? It's called having credibility. Do you honestly expect people to just take what you say as fact just because you say so?
 
How is it stupid to ask you to back up your assertions with facts?

For the simple fact that you are trolling threads and asking for “statistics” to support the FACTUAL claim I made; that there are millions of powerful highly educated rich people who also are devout, not just the poor sobs of society as Hatuey claims. Did Hatuey present any "statistics" to support his assertion? No, because your goal here is to troll my threads not his.

This is why you are a troll and rarely have anything to ever add to a debate. Your questions are not intended to get to any facts, but to elicit emotional responses.

Here's another clue for you; why do you NEVER respond with facts to dispute others claims? The simple truth is that it would require effort and being a thread troll, you’re unwilling to expend any effort which is what trolling is, an activity that requires little effort and zero intellectual thought.

Your feigned innocence only illustrates the idiotic mentality it takes to be a thread troll.

It's called having credibility.

Credibility is something you seriously lack when all you seem to do in this forum is troll and challenge a select few threads and posters you happen to disagree with regarding their assertions yet willingly ignore the assertions of those you tend to agree with.


Do you honestly expect people to just take what you say as fact just because you say so?

Do you honestly expect people to take any of your trolling seriously when you could just as easily bring your own facts to the debate?

I listed a few very rich and powerful people among MILLIONS to support my claim. What did you bring; nothing more than your typically empty rhetoric and feigned innocent trolling.

Carry on; if you want to support Hatuey's contentions, then do so with some FACTS to support it rather than troll my comments. I look forward to you proving my assertions wrong.

So that you can be clear as to what statements I made that you need to disprove:

The richest and most educated among us are devoutly religious and many being Catholic.


Good luck with that; thread troll. :2wave:
 
For the simple fact that you are trolling threads and asking for “statistics” to support the FACTUAL claim I made; that there are millions of powerful highly educated rich people who also are devout, not just the poor sobs of society as Hatuey claims. Did Hatuey present any "statistics" to support his assertion? No, because your goal here is to troll my threads not his.

If your claim is so FACTUAL it shouldn't be hard for you to post some statistics to back up your claims. As for Hatuey's assertion, it didn't need statistics because he didn't make an absolutist claim like you did.

This is why you are a troll and rarely have anything to ever add to a debate. Your questions are not intended to get to any facts, but to elicit emotional responses.

I asked you a simple question in a civil manner and you resorted to your typical insults when someone doesn't agree with you. I've yet to see you have one single civil conversation on here with someone you disagree with. Is it really that hard for you to tolerate people that you don't agree with?

Here's another clue for you; why do you NEVER respond with facts to dispute others claims? The simple truth is that it would require effort and being a thread troll, you’re unwilling to expend any effort which is what trolling is, an activity that requires little effort and zero intellectual thought.

Your feigned innocence only illustrates the idiotic mentality it takes to be a thread troll.

It's not feigned at all. I was sincerely trying to have a civil conversation with you. I can see now that it is impossible.

Credibility is something you seriously lack when all you seem to do in this forum is troll and challenge a select few threads and posters you happen to disagree with regarding their assertions yet willingly ignore the assertions of those you tend to agree with.

Dude, I just asked you to back up your claims with some ****ing statistics. Is that really too much to ask?

Do you honestly expect people to take any of your trolling seriously when you could just as easily bring your own facts to the debate?

I listed a few very rich and powerful people among MILLIONS to support my claim. What did you bring; nothing more than your typically empty rhetoric and feigned innocent trolling.

When you make absolute claims like you did seven people hardly qualifies as evidence.

Carry on; if you want to support Hatuey's contentions, then do so with some FACTS to support it rather than troll my comments. I look forward to you proving my assertions wrong.

So that you can be clear as to what statements I made that you need to disprove:

Good luck with that; thread troll. :2wave:

Your bull**** in this forum is getting really ****ing old.
 
Your bull**** in this forum is getting really ****ing old.

The only BS on this thread is your incessant whiney drivel suggesting that you merely attempting civil discourse.

Let's be CLEAR what I stated:

Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The richest and most educated among us are devoutly religious and many being Catholic.


To argue that I need statistics to prove this is beyond stupid. I listed seven perfect examples that support the statement and you bombard the thread with useless drivel; BRAVO, you defined what is meant by thread trolling.

Carry on; your clown like attempts to drag the thread IQ down is more than apparent.
 
The only BS on this thread is your incessant whiney drivel suggesting that you merely attempting civil discourse.

Let's be CLEAR what I stated:

Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The richest and most educated among us are devoutly religious and many being Catholic.


To argue that I need statistics to prove this is beyond stupid. I listed seven perfect examples that support the statement and you bombard the thread with useless drivel; BRAVO, you defined what is meant by thread trolling.

Carry on; your clown like attempts to drag the thread IQ down is more than apparent.

7 examples don't prove your absolutist statement and it never will. Keep trying though.
 
What a compelling argument, carry on..... :cuckoo:

Thanks! I agree. :cool:

See, it's not that hard to be polite and civil.

It's just sad that you couldn't come up with any legitimate statistics to back up your claims. :2wave:
 
It's just sad that you couldn't come up with any legitimate statistics to back up your claims. :2wave:

It is pathetically lame to suggest that one needs statistics to prove:

Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The richest and most educated among us are devoutly religious and many being Catholic.


Your clown like attempts to be relevant is noted. :2wave:
 
It is pathetically lame to suggest that one needs statistics to prove:

Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The richest and most educated among us are devoutly religious and many being Catholic.


Your clown like attempts to be relevant is noted. :2wave:

Yeah, you're right. It's so lame to ask for a credible source for your assertions. I should have just taken your word for it. After all, you are the Truth Detector! :lol:

Ah, now I'm not relevant. That's interesting, because you keep replying.
 
Well, that's really kind of weak, don't you think? Perhaps that's one of the reasons why fewer people are religious in this country.

I don't think it's weak. It's perfectly in line with how we create our perception of reality. It's a chain of trust which is linked all the way back to those who either experienced it directly, were completely delusional, or were extremely good liars. There's also probably a lot of myth mixed in. I personally think it's more likely that they were telling the truth rather than lying or delusional as they would never have won the trust of their followers otherwise. The only thing that is inherently lacking is independent verifiability. How could one ever prove that Jesus healed the sick or walked on water 2000 years ago?

I must confess that as an inherently untrusting individual I would probably not believe in God had it not been for direct experiences I had with him (not that I can prove it to you).

Now, back to the ethic of reciprocity or the golden rule. What would the world be like if everybody tried their very best to follow that rule?

0154_Heaven_christian_clipart.jpg


It would be Utopia. Quite literally, it would be Heaven on Earth. This is God's Law and it is perfect. Yet we continue to stubbornly perpetuate the myth that the ends justify the means and that greed is a virtue. We continue to believe that we are smarter than God and his prophets. Instead of forgiveness, we demand revenge! What law are we following? Not God's Law, but the Law of Satan!: "Do unto others as they do unto you."
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's weak. It's perfectly in line with how we create our perception of reality. It's a chain of trust which is linked all the way back to those who either experienced it directly, were completely delusional, or were extremely good liars. There's also probably a lot of myth mixed in. I personally think it's more likely that they were telling the truth rather than lying or delusional as they would never have won the trust of their followers otherwise. The only thing that is inherently lacking is independent verifiability. How could one ever prove that Jesus healed the sick or walked on water 2000 years ago?

I can understand how trust may be enough for some. However, it isn't enough for me. I crave more substance than mere trust.

I must confess that as an inherently untrusting individual I would probably not believe in God had it not been for direct experiences I had with him (not that I can prove it to you).

And I wouldn't expect you to. There hasn't been a single person who has been able to undeniably prove their own direct experiences with God and I wouldn't expect it to start happening.

Now, back to the ethic of reciprocity or the golden rule. What would the world be like if everybody tried their very best to follow that rule?

0154_Heaven_christian_clipart.jpg

It's impossible, but even hypothetically, it sounds too boring to me. Individuality is far too wonderful.

It would be Utopia. Quite literally, it would be Heaven on Earth. This is God's Law and it is perfect. Yet we continue to stubbornly perpetuate the myth that the ends justify the means and that greed is a virtue. We continue to believe that we are smarter than God and his prophets. Instead of forgiveness, we demand revenge! What law are we following? Not the God's Law, but the Law of Satan!: "Do unto others as they do unto you."

And what is wrong with that? The idea that one should love everyone is foolish to me. "If a man smite you on one cheek, smash him on the other!" It's interesting that you bring up Laveyan Satanism, because I'm actually a member of the Church of Satan.
 
I can understand how trust may be enough for some. However, it isn't enough for me. I crave more substance than mere trust.

Trust is what shapes your reality. First and foremost, you trust your power of observation, though it is subject to folly. Then you trust people you perceive as trustworthy. For instance, you don't need a particle accelerator to believe is sub-atomic particles, though you can never prove it yourself.

It's impossible, but even hypothetically, it sounds too boring to me. Individuality is far too wonderful.

Where did I say you would have to sacrifice your individuality? God created us as as individuals and there's no way to sacrifice individuality without biologically turning us into ants. Giving is certainly not inconsistent with individuality.

And what is wrong with that? The idea that one should love everyone is foolish to me. "If a man smite you on one cheek, smash him on the other!" It's interesting that you bring up Laveyan Satanism, because I'm actually a member of the Church of Satan.

It perpetuates a cycle of injustice and evil. The only way to break the cycle is to follow the golden rule.
 
Trust is what shapes your reality. First and foremost, you trust your power of observation, though it is subject to folly. Then you trust people you perceive as trustworthy. For instance, you don't need a particle accelerator to believe is sub-atomic particles, though you can never prove it yourself.

I don't even completely trust my perception. I think it's dangerous to believe anything without any question. One should be willing to question everything.

Where did I say you would have to sacrifice your individuality? God created us as as individuals and there's no way to sacrifice individuality without biologically turning us into ants. Giving is certainly not inconsistent with individuality.

I realize you didn't say it. I just think that there would be a certain amount of individuality lost if everyone followed the golden rule.

It perpetuates a cycle of injustice and evil. The only way to break the cycle is to follow the golden rule.

Perhaps, if you believe in the concept of absolute evil. I personally don't. Evil is a subjective term. And how exactly does it perpetuate a cycle of injustice and evil?
 
I don't even completely trust my perception. I think it's dangerous to believe anything without any question. One should be willing to question everything.

Agreed.


I realize you didn't say it. I just think that there would be a certain amount of individuality lost if everyone followed the golden rule.

How so?

Perhaps, if you believe in the concept of absolute evil. I personally don't. Evil is a subjective term. And how exactly does it perpetuate a cycle of injustice and evil?

Evil is only subjective in the context of people not following the golden rule to begin with. For instance, there would be no need for a justice system if everybody tried their best to follow the golden rule. What ever minor transgressions they make would be between them and God.
 
Back
Top Bottom