Top comments

{{ annotation.praises_count }} Likes
{{ annotation.creator_alias }}
{{ annotation.creator_score }}

There are no comments yet. Be the first to start comment or request an explanation.


text size
"Although the mainstream scientific world would have us believe that atheism is on the rise, and the mainstream religions are going down, the truth is is that they're still only about 2% (maybe 3%) of the world's population that actually classify themselves as atheist, and about 13 or 14% who call themself non-religious. Whereas the big three take up over half of the world's population." Oh boy. That's not even close to an actual refutation of the point brought up in the first part of that first sentence. The fact that they're "On the rise" does not mean they're a majority population. It just means that the population in that category is increasing over time. Plus, there's more of that good old fashioned distrust of science by saying that the "mainstream scientific community says X, but the truth is Y", implying that there's somehow a problem with science (as if you can actually know anything is true without proper scientific methodologies). Not to mention the fact that he seems to imply everyone, from biologists, to geologists, to physicists, have anything to do with those population statistics. It's not a fact that has something to do with the consensus of the entire scientific community. It's a fact that comes from whatever organization did the polls, and is only accepted because it (probably) is fairly representative and isn't some flawed "I only asked 20 people" poll. Let's not forget the hypocrisy of denying what science tells us about the growth of the "Atheist" group, while using some other scientific information to get the global poll of world religions. Which is it, Jordan? Is science good, or is it bad? Or do you only like the science that confirms what you want to believe? Because neither of those polls are incompatible. Unless you got that global religion population poll from some other non-academic source. In which case: Why should we care? Everything has both a creator and creation aspect. Once you kick a ball, the ball may hit a domino, and be the creator of its change. By the way, nothing is ever created. Matter only changes shape, just as you are a product of all the food you've eaten, built with the information of your DNA. Your parents got together because of an evolutionary advantage, the primal urge to procreate. They created you. You, one day, might also be a creator of new human life. You could be the author of a book that inspires other authors to create books, and they could write books that inspire other authors to create books, and inspires musicians to create music, and inspires artists to create art. I think this whole creator/creation dichotomy is symbolic of cause and effect. When you say that we focus too much on the creation, to me that means we get caught up in the aftermath, and forget the importance that the creator of our struggles and fortunes plays in our lives. We must look for the root of our ills and resolve them with the root of our successes, our health, our wholeness. If that, to you, takes the form of God, go with God and see where He takes you. God takes a different shape in my life, but it/He is the same entity, nonetheless. God bless.