Why has religion retained its appeal?

[danot 10]

9 minutes ago, Halibut said:

That would be my position. Does Danot hold a contrary position I wonder, and if so on what grounds?

No issues with women and girls having the freedom to dress as they choose, but if wearing the niqab was to become the next teenage craze,  local authorities might.  As you say, there's nothing preventing teenage girls turning it into the next fashion craze , but would the authorities still automatically assume that the wearers are teenage girls, or would this new craze present far too many problems for the authorities and be nipped in the bud after being branded disrespectful?  You and I both know it wouldn't be welcomed by the authorities. 

47 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

I've no idea what your argument is, you're all over the place.

 

Can you set it out simply?

Post 783 tells it in a nutshell.

[SnailyBoy 10]

19 minutes ago, danot said:

 

Post 783 tells it in a nutshell.

It honestly doesn't, that's why I suggested putting it in simple terms.

 

What are you claiming?

 

PS. Post #787. Are you literally going off at a tangent and making bizarre claims to try and reinforce some notion you have?

[danot 10]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

It honestly doesn't, that's why I suggested putting it in simple terms.

 

What are you claiming?

 

PS. Post #787. Are you literally going off at a tangent and making bizarre claims to try and reinforce some notion you have?

Are you driving as well?  I said post 783.

[SnailyBoy 10]

8 minutes ago, danot said:

Are you driving as well?  I said post 783.

I know you did,  post #783 doesn't make it clearer. What are you claiming, and please please provide evidence rather than conjecture.

 

Please for everyone's sanity, put it in simple terms.

 

My next point was for post #787, the teenage niqab phase. You know the bizarre claims to reinforce some notion you have?

Edited March 20, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[bendix 10]

57 minutes ago, danot said:

No issues with women and girls having the freedom to dress as they choose, but if wearing the niqab was to become the next teenage craze,  local authorities might.  As you say, there's nothing preventing teenage girls turning it into the next fashion craze , but would the authorities still automatically assume that the wearers are teenage girls, or would this new craze present far too many problems for the authorities and be nipped in the bud after being branded disrespectful?  You and I both know it wouldn't be welcomed by the authorities. 

Post 783 tells it in a nutshell.

Why would local authorities have a problem if young women - or anyone else for that matter - decide to wear niqabs?  

 

Genuine question. On what grounds do you anticipate they might be concerned?

 

 

[Guest]

On 16/03/2019 at 10:04, mrcharlie said:

I really don't understand  why people are religious. All religion is based on fables and tales scribbled 1000's of years ago. None of it stands up to 21st century scrutiny. 

I think its time mankind moved on.

According to the latest Pew survey- the opposite is happening.

 

In fact, it is the unaffiliated (atheists would be in this group) that will decline whilst religion grows.

 

 

Quote

 

What about atheists?

Pew Research also estimates that the percentage of religiously unaffiliated people is expected to decline from the current 16% to about 13% even if the overall number of such folks will rise from 1.17 billion in 2015 to 1.2 billion in 2060. In contrast, the number of religious people is expected to grow to 8.1 billion by 2050.

 

 

[SnailyBoy 10]

10 minutes ago, Mr Fisk said:

According to the latest Pew survey- the opposite is happening.

 

In fact, it is the unaffiliated (atheists would be in this group) that will decline whilst religion grows.

 

 

 

Indoctrination in action, unfortunately.

[Robin-H 11]

3 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Indoctrination in action, unfortunately.

Only in percentage terms. In absolute numbers the number of atheists will grow. 

 

It is not surprisingly the percentage will go down as areas with the highest birth rates are still largely very religious (which is often not a coincidence). 

[SnailyBoy 10]

Just now, Robin-H said:

Only in percentage terms. In absolute numbers the number of atheists will grow. 

 

It is not surprisingly the percentage will go down as areas with the highest birth rates are still largely very religious (which is often not a coincidence). 

Indeed and the cycle continues.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SnailyBoy said:

Indoctrination in action, unfortunately.

No all entirely- you have China today showing how people are turning to religion, what is effectively an atheist state.

 

Similarly in Russia - once state sponsored atheism, you now have religion on the rise.

 

Research by Dr Justin Barratt from Oxford, along with other researchers- showed that belief in god/ devine may well be innate.

 

You can find more on this via a simple Google search.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Guest

[SnailyBoy 10]

16 minutes ago, Mr Fisk said:

No all entirely- you have China today showing how people are turning to religion, what is effectively an atheist state.

 

Similarly in Russia - once state sponsored atheism, you now have religion on the rise.

 

Research by Dr Justin Barratt from Oxford, along with other researchers- showed that belief in god/ devine may well be innate.

 

You can find more on this via a simple Google search.

All that belief, yet not a shred of evidence to show that's it's true.

 

Oh, I did a simple Google search and found this

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[Cyclone 10]

14 hours ago, danot said:

I didn't switch. This is what actually happened.  After saying 'the public' way, way back in post 699. in post 700 RootsBooster asked me-

 

To which I replied in post 705-

There. you see. When asked I clarified what I meant. You've known what I meant all along yet you're trying to make out I'm out to deceive people.  Well how could I when it's all here to read.  You're the one using underhand tactics Cyclone by deliberately misrepresenting people and falsely accusing them of deceit.    

You quite specifically if 699 said public several times, and then in 705 you think that private businesses are a clarification of "public"?