Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
What do you mean? I've not been living on mars for the whole of my life, and I've met many different people from different background, and I think, like the majority of people I know what sort of people believe what.
Are you trying to say that what I have said is wrong, and that the people in the world who have actually experienced the suffering aren't usually the religious ones, whereas the people in the world who have merely heard about, or read about the suffering in the world, but have never actually experienced it aren't the atheists?
What I am wondering is how you know, other than your own limited experience, that people in general do not give up their faith in the face of adversity. To know that you must have taken a survey, or a poll. I did not say you are wrong. I am just wondering how you know you are right?
Well as I just said, for a start the vast majority of jews who survived the holocaust didn't give up their religion afterwards. The vast majority of people from poorer backgrounds are religious - religious/atheistic divide pretty closely follows the poor/wealthy divide. The vast majority of people who survive freak natural disasters don't suddenly become atheists.
You live in new york don't you? Was the general atmosphere after 9/11 one of several people suddenly giving up their faith, having had a light bulb going off in their minds, and suddenly proclaiming that god can't exist? Or was it more like the opposite?
You may be right. I don't seem to have your sources of information. I don't live in New York City. And even if I did, I don't think I would know the answer to your question.
China: It is estimated that 20 million Chinese lost their lives during Mao's Cultural Revolution. Christians stood firm in what was probably the most widespread and harsh persecution the Church has ever experienced. The persecution purified and indigenized the Church. Since 1977 the growth of the Church in China has no parallels in history. Researchers estimate that there were 30-75 million Christians by 1990. Mao Zedong unwittingly became the greatest evangelist in history.
El-Salvador:
The 12-year civil war, earthquakes, and the collapse of the price of coffee, the nation's main export, impoverished the nation. Over 80% live in dire poverty. An astonishing spiritual harvest has been gathered from all strata of society in the midst of the hate and bitterness of war. In 1960 evangelicals were 2.3% of the population, but today are around 20%.
Ethiopia:
Ethiopia is in a state of shock. Her population struggles with the trauma of millions of deaths through repression, famine, and war. Two great waves of violent persecution refined and purified the Church, but there were many martyrs. There have been millions coming to Christ. Protestants were fewer than 0.8% of the population in 1960, but by 1990 this may have become 13% of the population.
Examples such as these could be multiplied. The history of mankind has been a history of suffering and war.
just to help richard_mcnair's argument:
Well as I just said, for a start the vast majority of jews who survived the holocaust didn't give up their religion afterwards.
The vast majority of people from poorer backgrounds are religious - religious/atheistic divide pretty closely follows the poor/wealthy divide.
The vast majority of people who survive freak natural disasters don't suddenly become atheists.
You live in new york don't you? Was the general atmosphere after 9/11 one of several people suddenly giving up their faith, having had a light bulb going off in their minds, and suddenly proclaiming that god can't exist? Or was it more like the opposite?
Of course that is true. But what is being argued is that there is nothing which corresponds to that conception of God: the traditional Western conception of God.
As for any other conception of God, whether anything corresponds to that has to be argued independently.
But it is not an objection to an argument that nothing corresponds to the traditional Western conception of God that something may correspond to a different conception of God, as you seem to think it is.
This may be in response to another topic that is somehow being worked into mine or a continuation of another argument by some other person being worked in here since this is precariously immaterial. What is being argued in ArthBH's initial post seems to be (at least to me) a classic type of comparative consistency argument that usually comes about in the arguments about God and whether or not he exists. With that in mind, I don't see how you can say that what is being argued is that there is "nothing which corresponds to that conception