Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

Someone said that the USA is decended from the Protestant English but everyone right now identifies as Roman Catholic. When did this conversion happened?

Well, the "conversion" didn't happen at all. Half the USA was full of French and Spanish catholics even before the Protestants arrived, and the British brought a hell of a lot of Irish catholics and many others over (think about how many Italians are in the USA).

Think of all the German Protestant settlers too.

[Reelya]

Does the existence of German Protestant settlers modify what I said? In what way?

majikero had the wrong idea in asking "When did this conversion happened?" since there was no great conversion, which I addressed, but majikero was also wrong that "everyone right now identifies as Roman Catholic."

German Protestant settlers aren't relevant to the discussion, except that their existence just highlights that no "conversion" took place (like I said), since the German's are STILL protestants.

[majikero]

Several forms I filled out to move to the USA specifically states "Roman Catholic" when asking religion so that's an assumption I made on the main religion in the States.

[Reelya]

That's true, it is a major religion. Just not because of any magical "conversion". It's because there were a significant number of immigrants from catholic countries, many of whom predate the British.

[Scoops Novel]

The circles we're going in, bloody hell. As we all know, the existence of a god cannot be proved either way. The existence of a benevolent one is up for grabs, however. What is the usual argument for why exactly god couldn't give us free will and still guide all of us, and prevent us from evil? I wasn't aware that fathers abandoned their children. And oh, someone please bloody well explain why we all don't start on a level playing field. The disabled are so inconvenient, aren't they?

[Reelya]

What circles? the last few pages have been about the ethical value of religious vs secular institutions more so than existence of God. And this entire page is about the demographic makeup of religious groups in the USA, again nothing to do with the existence of God.

have you read the whole thread or just making assumptions?

[Owlbread]

Does the existence of German Protestant settlers modify what I said? In what way?

majikero had the wrong idea in asking "When did this conversion happened?" since there was no great conversion, which I addressed, but majikero was also wrong that "everyone right now identifies as Roman Catholic."

German Protestant settlers aren't relevant to the discussion, except that their existence just highlights that no "conversion" took place (like I said), since the German's are STILL protestants.

Woah woah, chill out. I was concurring with you. I was trying to show how they highlight that there wasn't really a conversion, rather that Protestants (possibly the majority of them) were coming to America later on.

Although, maybe there was at least some kind of a conversion with respect to the early USA. The point we're making here is that by the time the original USA was formed, the majority of the population were Protestants and so on (not Catholics), regardless of who was there first. Over time this has changed. My suggestion for this is the immigration of the Irish, Spanish, Poles and in recent times Latin Americans/Central Americans. Think of the sheer number of people with some kind of Latin American ancestry in the USA, and think about how many of them must have Catholic backgrounds. They still don't overtake the majority in terms of religion but Catholicism has certainly grown over time.

[Reelya]

Oops sorry, internet and all, it's hard to read tone / intent. I assumed it was meant to be a refutation.

[Owlbread]

Oops sorry, internet and all, it's hard to read tone / intent. I assumed it was meant to be a refutation.

It's not that hard to read tone/intent, you just need to try not to jump to conclusions, but it's ok.

[Scoops Novel]

I've read the last few pages, and recognize that there's some value there. In terms of pertinent points, though, i simply thought that there were more important matters to raise? We were arguing about what god does and doesn't do, and if it matters if religion causes us to do it besides, but I'd like to know the answers presented to what he doesn't. Circles isn't the right word, i admit. There was slow but steady progress, but i was surprised no one had brought up some of the most pertinent matters.

[Micro102]

Its pretty dam hard to say what God hasn't done, because there are excuses to them that can be invented and people who claim to have done things as commanded by God. It all goes back to the need for proof that a God exists.

But I'll give it a shot. God has never bestowed new information that benefits humanity. Such as medicine or technology.

[10ebbor10]

The fact that everything can be done through secular means is not an argument against religion. The fact that he got his banana is not because [Insert Diety here] gave him one from Heaven, but because someone else did so, while being motivated by his scriptures.

It wouldn't. Humans are humans. They'd find another excuse to justify their hate.

This is my favourite argument.  "Good things?  Yeah, they're all caused by religion.  Bad things?  Oh no, humans are humans, they're nothing to do with religion".

You keep acting like problems only exist in fundamentalist interpretations wheras actually the lack of basis problem is present in pretty much every interpretation of every religion (in fact it's the fundamentalist interpretations such as creationism that at least attempt to have a basis sometimes, although the evidence they turn to is usually flawed or incorrect).

That's not what I said, at all. As you might remember, I was referring to Muz's example, not to the world at large. Not everything is caused by religion. Religion can aid or try to reinforce it, but it's not like religions have a copyright on Good or Bad.

That's where we differentiate I suppose. There's an entire branch of science build on intrepretation of Bible/ religion and as such they've got a variety of reasons to support their mandates.

Finally, you yourself said that science and religion aren't incompatible, now you say "science did it too!" as an apology for something religion did.

Probably Fordism then. Or atleast the mindset of the people behind it.

The point I was trying to make was that the problem doesn't lie with the religion or the science, but with those who use it to justify their means.

OK, I'm an American Atheist, and have never met another atheist who acts as you say most do.

That's a bold statement to make. I've never seen religion actually stagnate anything (aside from maybe in the US). I suspect you're just taking pot shots at Christian conservatives/traditionalists.

ummmm.... Islam? You know, the place where they take everything in their Holy book as scientific knowledge. They are taught that salt water cannot mix with fresh water, and this is all enforced by their religious government. People who speak out against it can be arrested and even executed. You think this hasn't happened in the past with other religions? You think it isn't happening now to a lessee degree? Creationists have tried to get their ideas taught in schools. If these ideas weren't shot down, how many future scientists would be spending their time trying to prove creationism? I'd rather have that cure for cancer 10 years earlier.

Says that he doesn't focus on fundamentalist intrepretations alone. Then follows with a list of why religion is bad based solely on fundamentalist fractions of religion.
Way to go to break down your own argument.

And removing religion would help. They have charities but think about the massive amount of money that is donated to the church itself. Some people spend over 30% of their income on church donations. That money could be going to hungry people.

Missionaries are helping Africans? Great. Do what nonreligious people can do, but preach to them about your religion in exchange. O, BTW, the Pope decided that Africans shouldn't use condoms, or anything that can prevent AIDS in an AIDS heavy continent. So yes, getting rid of religion would help a lot.

People give money to governements too, and it uses a lot of that to pay for it's own infrastructure. I suppose we should drop that too. The people who spend more than 30% of their income are often the highly religious, evangelists, ...

As for the Pope, it was an unlucky statement. It does fit in the Christian vision, which generally denounces sex merely for pleasure, promoting stable relations found in love, rather than the constant short unstable relations we start to see more today. But for things Pope has done, maybe you should look at the action of Pope Johannus Paulus II  who was hugely important during the anti-communist revolutions in Poland, as well as in many other countries.

Besides if religion is such a dumb, non sensical thing as everyone of you seem to see, then why are there still so many religious people. It's not like they are dumb, or indoctrinated, or anything. So why?

[Scoops Novel]

Yeah... that last point? I have quite the suspicion most religious people were raised into it from a very young age. They told them that was how it was, and they weren't at an age to ask questions. And that's decidedly first world.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah... that last point? I have quite the suspicion most religious people were raised into it from a very young age. They told them that was how it was, and there wasn't an if.

I can't say about you, but in most Western countries people get to choose from themselves. Besides, it doesn't explain conversions, and such.
The rising from a very young age is something you see often in sects and such.

[fqllve]

Says that he doesn't focus on fundamentalist intrepretations alone. Then follows with a list of why religion is bad based solely on fundamentalist fractions of religion.
Way to go to break down your own argument.

Why wouldn't you? I'm more of a religious apologist than anything but it's easy to to see that fundamentalism and radicalism are the biggest sources of problems for religion.

Besides if religion is such a dumb, non sensical thing as everyone of you seem to see, then why are there still so many religious people. It's not like they are dumb, or indoctrinated, or anything. So why?

You aren't going to get very far with that argument, mostly because it's hard to say that religions don't indoctrinate their adherents. It's not indoctrination with malicious intent, and in fact much of child-rearing is in fact instilling beliefs in children that they are expected not to question, as these beliefs are so fundamental to society that to invite questioning them puts the whole system at risk. And further, speaking as an atheist, it can seem kind of silly that an otherwise rational person would believe in something so blatantly anthropocentric as the Abrahamic traditions.

I'd say the real reason there are so many theists has little to do with the merits of the beliefs themselves on a truth scale and more to do with the simultaneous birth of religion and government and the fact that they have been inextricably conflated throughout history. Society is bound by and based on religious tradition. Even someone like myself, who was raised nonreligious, finds his actions and mores are often based on religious ideals.