Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View The rise of Atheism in the US
Show More
Loading...
Flag rangerken April 13, 2012 11:07 PM EDT
Here is an article about he rise of Atheism in the United States. I thuink it is worth reading and discussing...so, here it is.

rise-atheism-america

Here is a key paragraph...

"If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. "We don't want the obliteration of religion; we don't want religion wiped off the face of the earth," Silverman said. "All we demand is equality."

Comments???

Rangerken
Flag steven_guy April 13, 2012 11:19 PM EDT

Perhaps not a rise but more of a coming out?


It is hard for me to comment because I live elsewhere, so I won't comment any further.

Flag teilhard April 13, 2012 11:37 PM EDT

I suspect that a fair percentage of Americans have ALWAYS been "Religious" mostly or even only in a Cultural Respect ... Such Folks now increasingly feel more free to say in public what they truly think and believe ...

Flag F1fan April 13, 2012 11:38 PM EDT

In my experience there are many people who have very weak links to any sort of religious affiliation.  They seem to claim affiliation to Christianity and belief in jesus because it is such a common meme.  I think the growth of fundamentalism and what it represents has given some folks a reason to begin pondering why they believe at all.  I suspect most people are alreay non-theists, as they have no active intent or practice in religion.  The more it is accepted socially to reject religious affiliation the more folks will feel comfortable to declare they are atheists.

Flag mountain_man April 14, 2012 12:58 AM EDT

If Atheists do take over, or at least get a larger voice, Christians would have no worries. While we would like to see a more rational, less religious, society we would do nothing to take away anyone's religion. Of course we would not tolerate the harm caused by extremism, no society should. Most of us firmly believe in an individuals right to believe as they wish (as long as no one is harmed). That comes from empathy; many self proclaimed christians would love to force us to attend a church, they want to force their religion into our lives, our schools, our government.


And as has already been said; many are coming out of the Atheist closet. It's not that Christians are losing their faith, they're just being honest about not believing. As more Atheists speak out it becomes safer for others to proclaim their non belief in public.

Flag JCarlin April 14, 2012 1:37 AM EDT

Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:07PM, rangerken wrote:

Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities.

Rangerken


I doubt atheists as such will become a political segment of the population.  It would be nice however, and I think it is coming rapidly, if an atheist would have the same rights as Mormons, Catholics, and UCC's to run for political office openly.  Not pushing those beliefs on others like the Mormons and Catholics, but able to run as an atheist not as a religious person. 

Flag steven_guy April 14, 2012 2:14 AM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:58AM, mountain_man wrote:


If Atheists do take over, or at least get a larger voice, Christians would have no worries. While we would like to see a more rational, less religious, society we would do nothing to take away anyone's religion. Of course we would not tolerate the harm caused by extremism, no society should. Most of us firmly believe in an individuals right to believe as they wish (as long as no one is harmed). That comes from empathy; many self proclaimed christians would love to force us to attend a church, they want to force their religion into our lives, our schools, our government.


And as has already been said; many are coming out of the Atheist closet. It's not that Christians are losing their faith, they're just being honest about not believing. As more Atheists speak out it becomes safer for others to proclaim their non belief in public.




That's the impression I've had from afar.

Flag Blü April 14, 2012 4:38 AM EDT


[...] they argue that the religious Right's politicization of faith in the 1990s turned younger, socially liberal Christians away from churches, even as conservatives became more zealous. The dropouts were turned off by churches' Old Testament condemnation of homosexuals, premarital sex, contraception, and abortion. The Catholic Church's sex scandals also prompted millions to equate religion with moralistic hypocrisy. "While the Republican base has become ever more committed to mixing religion and politics," Putnam and Campbell write, "the rest of the country has been moving in the opposite direction."


Let's hope that's based on well-prepared surveys and is essentially true.

And I'd prefer it if activists in the armed services called for trained counsellors rather than 'chaplains'.  'Atheist chaplain' sounds oxymoronic.

Flag steven_guy April 14, 2012 5:40 AM EDT

I read recently that about one third of Australia's population is atheist.

Flag costrel April 14, 2012 10:04 AM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:37AM, JCarlin wrote:

 I doubt atheists as such will become a political segment of the population.  It would be nice however, and I think it is coming rapidly, if an atheist would have the same rights as Mormons, Catholics, and UCC's to run for political office openly.  Not pushing those beliefs on others like the Mormons and Catholics, but able to run as an atheist not as a religious person. 


I agree that it would be nice if atheists could openly run for political office, even run for president. Yet I also think that atheists would do well to steer clear of American politics. American politics is corrupt, the gamboling fields of the rich and the arrogant and those with delusions of grandeur, and is little more than an offshoot of American Christianity. In other words, I think that atheists would do well to reject both politics and religion and be not only atheistical but also apolitical. During the last presidential election, I became interested in politics for the first time in my life. Now, four years later, I am concluding that I had made a mistake and that I should have remained apolitical and disinterested in politics and so-called political "solutions." 

Flag Idbc April 14, 2012 11:34 AM EDT

 Howdy Costrel


Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:37AM, JCarlin wrote:

 I doubt atheists as such will become a political segment of the population.  It would be nice however, and I think it is coming rapidly, if an atheist would have the same rights as Mormons, Catholics, and UCC's to run for political office openly.  Not pushing those beliefs on others like the Mormons and Catholics, but able to run as an atheist not as a religious person. 



Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:04AM, costrel wrote:


 I agree that it would be nice if atheists could openly run for political office, even run for president. Yet I also think that atheists would do well to steer clear of American politics. American politics is corrupt, the gamboling fields of the rich and the arrogant and those with delusions of grandeur, and is little more than an offshoot of American Christianity. In other words, I think that atheists would do well to reject both politics and religion and be not only atheistical but also apolitical. During the last presidential election, I became interested in politics for the first time in my life. Now, four years later, I am concluding that I had made a mistake and that I should have remained apolitical and disinterested in politics and so-called political "solutions." 




I do agree with you that American politcs is "corrupt". However I think that the "corruption" is at least partly due to the efforts of Neo-Conservative Theorcrats to theocrize the U.S.  And that is one reason why I think Atheist should get more involved in politics.  


I do agree that there is a possiblity that Atheists may be "corrupted" by politics.  That is one thing that Atheists should NOT learn from Theists. 


Not particpating in politics is no more a solution then not voting.  If you do not vote or particpate in politics you can bet more than a dollar that theists especailly of the right-wing Christian will vote, and will elect politicans that want to establish or re-establish a Christian country guided by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 


When Obama mentioned "unbelievers" in his first inaugural speech, Atheists I know had an orgasm(metaphorically).  I still know Atheists who hope and believe that he is a Crypto-Atheists who is afraid to "come out of the closet" for fear of the backlash.  


I think there is even less evidence for this than there is for him being a Crypto-Muslim. 


There is a newly formed National Atheists Party:


www.usanap.org/


Wether it will be successful or not I do not know. 


What I do know is that if you do nothing you will get nothing.  


Another group of atheist activist that is getting into politics.  


www.enlightenthevote.com/


I certainly can understand the disappointment with Chocolate Jesus. 


However I would be even MORE disappointed had Lefty been elected. 


Life is full of disappointments.  I am still disappointed that I never got that pony for Christmas! 


So far as I am concerned when I get so "disappointed" that I stop voting the "bad guys" have won. 


When I stop voting I start shooting! 


 


 


 

Flag JCarlin April 14, 2012 11:40 AM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:04AM, costrel wrote:

  During the last presidential election, I became interested in politics for the first time in my life. Now, four years later, I am concluding that I had made a mistake and that I should have remained apolitical and disinterested in politics and so-called political "solutions." 


I made the same mistake.  Their incessant requests for $25 or whatever you can afford are sent back in their postage paid envelope with a marker scrawl "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  Bowdlerized due to the fact that I learned it when I was 10.  Never forgot it. 

Flag Ken April 14, 2012 11:48 AM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:34AM, Idbc wrote:

What I do know is that if you do nothing you will get nothing.


I fully expect to get nothing. I am sick of hearing about the wonderful things that are going to happen thirty or forty years from now, when I'll be too old or too dead to benefit from them. If I can't have them now, to hell with them.

Flag JCarlin April 14, 2012 12:13 PM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:04AM, costrel wrote:

Yet I also think that atheists would do well to steer clear of American politics. American politics is corrupt, the gamboling fields of the rich and the arrogant and those with delusions of grandeur, and is little more than an offshoot of American Christianity. In other words, I think that atheists would do well to reject both politics and religion and be not only atheistical but also apolitical.


I think this is actually the case at this point.  Politics is simply involved in the distribution of useless money, that is money which doesn't produce anything.  The producers of the world, the teachers, scientists, engineers and manufacturers, which according to my unscientific observations are largely atheistic and apolitical seem to be able to continue to find the working money to produce.  They are happy to recycle useless money into creative ads, but this is a minor part of the useless money equation.  


The "unfortunate" part of all of this is that the useless money that used to be recycled to the religious poor is now reserved for the religious rich.  But the religious poor may be figuring out that they are being abused by their religion's PACs and voting against religion if not God.    

Flag mytmouse57 April 14, 2012 9:34 PM EDT

Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:07PM, rangerken wrote:

Here is an article about he rise of Atheism in the United States. I thuink it is worth reading and discussing...so, here it is.

rise-atheism-america

Here is a key paragraph...

"If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. "We don't want the obliteration of religion; we don't want religion wiped off the face of the earth," Silverman said. "All we demand is equality."

Comments???

Rangerken



Not having a specific religious faith isn't always the same as being atheist. There are plenty of non-religious theists out there.

Flag mytmouse57 April 14, 2012 9:36 PM EDT

Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:37PM, teilhard wrote:


I suspect that a fair percentage of Americans have ALWAYS been "Religious" mostly or even only in a Cultural Respect ... Such Folks now increasingly feel more free to say in public what they truly think and believe ...





I agree.

Flag mountain_man April 14, 2012 10:44 PM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 9:34PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Not having a specific religious faith isn't always the same as being atheist. There are plenty of non-religious theists out there.


A "non-religious theist" is an oxymoron. A religion is nothing more than a god belief. It need not be "organized," or written down, or believed by more than one  person. A theist is nothing more than a god believer. It doesn't matter which god or gods. So, if one is a theist they have a religion.


Of course believers love to play games using various definitions, even ones they make up themselves, but they always end up being based on equivocations. They use many different definitions at the same time.


Wikipedia: Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.


Dictionary.com: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies...


I can get more, and each entry has multiple definitions. The ones I chose support the definition I used; anyone believing in a god has a religion.

Flag teilhard April 14, 2012 11:40 PM EDT

A "non-Religious 'Theist'" COULD be, e.g., a "Deist" ... I don't know that a "Deist 'Theist'" would necessarily be a Practitioner of a "Religion," per se ...


Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:44PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 9:34PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Not having a specific religious faith isn't always the same as being atheist. There are plenty of non-religious theists out there.


A "non-religious theist" is an oxymoron. A religion is nothing more than a god belief. It need not be "organized," or written down, or believed by more than one  person. A theist is nothing more than a god believer. It doesn't matter which god or gods. So, if one is a theist they have a religion.


Of course believers love to play games using various definitions, even ones they make up themselves, but they always end up being based on equivocations. They use many different definitions at the same time.


Wikipedia: Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.


Dictionary.com: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies...


I can get more, and each entry has multiple definitions. The ones I chose support the definition I used; anyone believing in a god has a religion.





Flag NATAS April 15, 2012 8:54 PM EDT

Howdy Ken


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:34AM, Idbc wrote:

What I do know is that if you do nothing you will get nothing.



 


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:48AM, Ken wrote:

 I fully expect to get nothing



An excellent way of thinking to avoid being disappointed. 


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:48AM, Ken wrote:


 


. I am sick of hearing about the wonderful things that are going to happen thirty or forty years from now, when I'll be too old or too dead to benefit from them. If I can't have them now, to hell with them. 



Perfectly understandable.  I am not a prophet or a psychic.  Many of the "wonderful" things that were predicted thirty of forty years ago have not happened now.  There is no guarantee the the "wonderful"  rate of people not identifying with a religion will continue. I think it would be "wonderful" if it did, but only time will tell.  I am also at an age where I doubt that I will be alive in thrirty of forty years.  I don't have any children.


However I do have neices and nephews and I think it would be a "wonderful" thing if they did not have to live in a world of supersition.   A world or at country that is not dominated by right wing fundamentalist, wether Christian, Muslim or Jewish.  


Now it may well be that Apostles of Reason will not be successful in defeating the Apostles of Religious Superstitions.   It will be then up to my nieces and nephews to deal with the problem.


They could of course do nothing and avoid being disappointed. 


 




 





Flag JCarlin April 15, 2012 10:03 PM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:34AM, Idbc wrote:

So far as I am concerned when I get so "disappointed" that I stop voting the "bad guys" have won. 


When I stop voting I start shooting!  


Unfortunately, that may be necessary.  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  Thos. Jefferson.  The USA seems to have approved assassination as a political tool, and the religious right has demonstrated agreement.  I don't think the tactic will be necessary. Police attacks on Occupy Groups, the wingnut war on women and defunding of Limbaugh and ALEC by social network action have me quite optimistic about the November election.  The lame duck won't fool me again. There should be a substantial majority to compel compliance.   I will vote for him but money and time will go to insure that my representatives are on my side.   


However, that said, atheists are heavily involved in the political process just not as atheists.  We pick candidates carefully, support them with money and activism, (occasionally being fooled once) and vote and get out the vote.  We work beside theists, pagans, and people with no apparant religious beliefs. 

Flag mountain_man April 15, 2012 11:00 PM EDT

Apr 15, 2012 -- 8:54PM, NATAS wrote:

....They could of course do nothing and avoid being disappointed.


That's like saying a rock will be disappointed it didn't become a diamond. You'll be dead. There can be no disappointment since you'll be dead. One you're dead you'll be just like that rock; a bunch of inert matter with no capacity for feelings.

Flag Blü April 15, 2012 11:18 PM EDT

dave


A religion is nothing more than a god belief


I used to think that before I attended some (atheistic) Buddhist services.  They're ceremonial, communal and meditative and include an address of expert commentary on the teachings of Buddhism.  They have all the feel of religion.

Flag teilhard April 16, 2012 12:18 AM EDT

Having been a local "Precinct Captain" for many Years, I am sometimes VERY disappointed by a low TurnOut for Precinct Caucuses ... I think EVERYBODY should turn OFF the d*mned TV on Precinct Caucus Night and get INVOLVED ...


Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:03PM, JCarlin wrote:


  


However, that said, atheists are heavily involved in the political process just not as atheists.  We pick candidates carefully, support them with money and activism, (occasionally being fooled once) and vote and get out the vote.  We work beside theists, pagans, and people with no apparant religious beliefs. 





Flag mountain_man April 16, 2012 12:20 AM EDT

Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:18PM, Blü wrote:

dave


A religion is nothing more than a god belief


I used to think that before I attended some (atheistic) Buddhist services.


I'm not a fan of Buddhism. They still religiously follow a dogma, and, yes, the claim of no dogma is part of their dogma. Buddhism in its original forms included a belief in all the gods of the Hindu pantheon. Some Westerners just sanitized it for sale to other Westerners.


They're ceremonial, communal and meditative and include an address of expert commentary on the teachings of Buddhism.  They have all the feel of religion.


And all the dogma too. All that, and the fact that many versions of Buddhism hold god beliefs or at least some magical beliefs in spirits, aka "devas" and the like. I'd definitely put it in the realm of religious beliefs.

Flag mytmouse57 April 16, 2012 1:23 PM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:44PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 9:34PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Not having a specific religious faith isn't always the same as being atheist. There are plenty of non-religious theists out there.


A "non-religious theist" is an oxymoron. A religion is nothing more than a god belief. It need not be "organized," or written down, or believed by more than one  person. A theist is nothing more than a god believer. It doesn't matter which god or gods. So, if one is a theist they have a religion.


Of course believers love to play games using various definitions, even ones they make up themselves, but they always end up being based on equivocations. They use many different definitions at the same time.


Wikipedia: Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.


Dictionary.com: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies...


I can get more, and each entry has multiple definitions. The ones I chose support the definition I used; anyone believing in a god has a religion.





You can think whatever you wish, but that still does not change the fact:


Just because a person states they have "no religious affiliation" on a survey, that does not automatically make them an athiest. Wheter you agree or not, there are many people out there who believe in a God, Creator, higher power -- whatever -- who do not belong to any organized religion, do not affilate with any organized religion and have no desire to join an organized religion. 


If you have an issue with that, then feel free to find such a person (it should not be particularly difficult) and explain to them that they are, in fact, "religious."


The point is, the survey cited might not reflect the number of actual atheists -- but instead, includes a number of people (and I suspect a rather large number), who believe in a God/Creator/higher power, but have rejected formal or organized religion.


Flag farragut April 16, 2012 1:57 PM EDT

Probably true, but I would suggest that there are far more folks than is commonly recognized, sitting in the pews, who are atheists at heart but remain in the pews for social reasons. And I an certain, admittedly without proof, that the percentage of atheists among educated clergy is way higher than in the general population.

Flag mountain_man April 16, 2012 2:16 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 1:23PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You can think whatever you wish, but that still does not change the fact:


Thinking helps to understand the facts, not change them. I tried to change no facts. I just thought. Thinking is a good thing.


Just because a person states they have "no religious affiliation" on a survey, that does not automatically make them an athiest[sic]....


I find it, as Mr. Spock would say, fascinating that people constantly bring up something that no one was arguing about. It's a common ploy used by politicians; answer the question you wanted to be asked instead of the one that was asked.

Flag JCarlin April 16, 2012 2:31 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 1:57PM, farragut wrote:

Probably true, but I would suggest that there are far more folks than is commonly recognized, sitting in the pews, who are atheists at heart but remain in the pews for social reasons. And I an certain, admittedly without proof, that the percentage of atheists among educated clergy is way higher than in the general population.


I suspect you are right on both counts if God is defined as in the Abrahamic mythology.  The more you learn about "God" the less believable "He" becomes.  Many resort to Deism, pantheism or panentheism, but I am not sure I can distinguish any of those from atheism. 


Nevertheless, the God myth can be useful to atheists for educational and behavioral reasons.  Particularly for those who have been indoctrinated in God myths from youth.  Those social reasons are not only networking but behavioral as well.  For Christians a retreat to the human Jesus as a moral exemplar perhaps retaining his personally defined God whatever that is can be an atheistic reason for remaining in the pews.  Unitarians made a good living out of this paradigm well into the 20th century. 

Flag mytmouse57 April 16, 2012 3:04 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 1:57PM, farragut wrote:


Probably true, but I would suggest that there are far more folks than is commonly recognized, sitting in the pews, who are atheists at heart but remain in the pews for social reasons. And I an certain, admittedly without proof, that the percentage of atheists among educated clergy is way higher than in the general population.




I would say you are probably correct.

Flag mytmouse57 April 16, 2012 3:06 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 2:16PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 16, 2012 -- 1:23PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You can think whatever you wish, but that still does not change the fact:


Thinking helps to understand the facts, not change them. I tried to change no facts. I just thought. Thinking is a good thing.


Just because a person states they have "no religious affiliation" on a survey, that does not automatically make them an athiest[sic]....


I find it, as Mr. Spock would say, fascinating that people constantly bring up something that no one was arguing about. It's a common ploy used by politicians; answer the question you wanted to be asked instead of the one that was asked.




I wasn't aruging. I was merely pointing out the readily observable fact that a survey that asks about "religious faith" is not the most accurate means by which to determine whether the respondents are, in fact, actually atheists. It's a simple fact that, many people who have no faith in religion, per se, still think a God/Creator/higher power exists.


In order to really nail down the number of true atheists, the question would have to be more specific. 

Flag mountain_man April 16, 2012 3:26 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 3:06PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I wasn't aruging. I was merely pointing out the readily observable fact that a survey that asks about "religious faith" is not the most accurate means by which to determine whether the respondents are, in fact, actually atheists.


That's your argument. Atheists have no "religious faith" and who said they asked only Atheists?


It's a simple fact that, many people who have no faith in religion, per se, still think a God/Creator/higher power exists.


Which was my point; if you believe a god thing exists then you have a religion.


In order to really nail down the number of true atheists, the question would have to be more specific.


Have you seen the questions they asked?

Flag mytmouse57 April 16, 2012 4:10 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 3:26PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 16, 2012 -- 3:06PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I wasn't aruging. I was merely pointing out the readily observable fact that a survey that asks about "religious faith" is not the most accurate means by which to determine whether the respondents are, in fact, actually atheists.


That's your argument. Atheists have no "religious faith" and who said they asked only Atheists?


It's a simple fact that, many people who have no faith in religion, per se, still think a God/Creator/higher power exists.


Which was my point; if you believe a god thing exists then you have a religion.


In order to really nail down the number of true atheists, the question would have to be more specific.


Have you seen the questions they asked?




Did the ask, specifically, if respondents believed or thought that any sort of God/Creator/higher power exists?


If not, then the survey cannot determine the number of atheists, it can determine only those who don't believe in or belong to an organized religion.


And again, your assertion that one "has a religion" simply by virtue of thinking a God/Creator/higher power exists is non-sense.  There are numerous theists who don't believe in, practice or belong to any particular religion. 

Flag mountain_man April 16, 2012 8:15 PM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 4:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Did the ask, specifically, if respondents believed or thought that any sort of God/Creator/higher power exists?


Go read the original survey and find out for yourself. If you do not know what questions were asked and how they were worded then how can you make an intelligent argument based on a claim they asked the wrong questions?


And again, your assertion that one "has a religion" simply by virtue of thinking a God/Creator/higher power exists is non-sense....


Just because you are incapable of understanding doesn't make it nonsense. I'm just going by the definition of the word and gave examples to support my argument. If you can't understand that, then it's not my problem.

Flag Blü April 16, 2012 11:32 PM EDT

mytmouse


I think you're right to say the results of the survey contain relevant ambiguities.


But it seems to indicate a maturing attitude to religion in the US public when increasing numbers dissociate themselves from organized churches and are somewhere on the spectrum of atheist - agnostic - don't care - making own enquiries.

Flag mytmouse57 April 17, 2012 10:08 AM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Blü wrote:


mytmouse


I think you're right to say the results of the survey contain relevant ambiguities.


But it seems to indicate a maturing attitude to religion in the US public when increasing numbers dissociate themselves from organized churches and are somewhere on the spectrum of atheist - agnostic - don't care - making own enquiries.




I think you are correct.


And I'm all for that. 


"Because my pastor/priest told me so" isn't a good way to determine what one thinks. It's the age of self-determination. People have got to learn to think for themselves. 

Flag mytmouse57 April 17, 2012 10:10 AM EDT

Apr 16, 2012 -- 8:15PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 16, 2012 -- 4:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Did the ask, specifically, if respondents believed or thought that any sort of God/Creator/higher power exists?


Go read the original survey and find out for yourself. If you do not know what questions were asked and how they were worded then how can you make an intelligent argument based on a claim they asked the wrong questions?


And again, your assertion that one "has a religion" simply by virtue of thinking a God/Creator/higher power exists is non-sense....


Just because you are incapable of understanding doesn't make it nonsense. I'm just going by the definition of the word and gave examples to support my argument. If you can't understand that, then it's not my problem.




You're trying to split hairs, and ignore the central premise. 


Oh well.


The basic observation of the survey still stands. Traditional, organized religion as we know it is losing steam in the U.S.

Flag teilhard April 17, 2012 11:43 AM EDT

I agree ... Holding particular Views and Ideas "... because Carl Sagan said so ... " isn't a good Approach, either ...


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:08AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 16, 2012 -- 11:32PM, Blü wrote:


mytmouse


I think you're right to say the results of the survey contain relevant ambiguities.


But it seems to indicate a maturing attitude to religion in the US public when increasing numbers dissociate themselves from organized churches and are somewhere on the spectrum of atheist - agnostic - don't care - making own enquiries.




I think you are correct.


And I'm all for that. 


"Because my pastor/priest told me so" isn't a good way to determine what one thinks. It's the age of self-determination. People have got to learn to think for themselves. 





Flag mountain_man April 17, 2012 11:48 AM EDT

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:10AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You're trying to split hairs, and ignore the central premise. 


Oh well.


I see my argument was over your head. Sorry.


The basic observation of the survey still stands. Traditional, organized religion as we know it is losing steam in the U.S.


Those holding god beliefs been declining since the 1950's. It's been declining at a faster rate in other, more advanced, countries.

Flag mytmouse57 April 17, 2012 5:15 PM EDT

Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:48AM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:10AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You're trying to split hairs, and ignore the central premise. 


Oh well.


I see my argument was over your head. Sorry.


The basic observation of the survey still stands. Traditional, organized religion as we know it is losing steam in the U.S.


Those holding god beliefs been declining since the 1950's. It's been declining at a faster rate in other, more advanced, countries.




People exist who think there is a God/Creator/prive mover/higher power, but who have rejected any form of religion. Such people might very well describe themselves as having "no religious faith" on a survey -- but that does not make them atheists. 


If you think they are incorrect, according to your argument, and should still describe themselves as having "religious belief," then feel free to take that up with them. 


Past that, you seem quite bent upon convincing yourself that more atheists exist than actually do.



Flag mountain_man April 17, 2012 7:51 PM EDT

Apr 17, 2012 -- 5:15PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

People exist who think there is a God/Creator/prive mover/higher power, but who have rejected any form of religion.


I've covered that already. If they believe in a god/whatever then they have a religion. I explained it in detail a few postings back. I suggest you go re-read that.


Such people might very well describe themselves as having "no religious faith" on a survey -- but that does not make them atheists.


It does. If they do not hold a belief in a god/whatever then they lack a belief in gods/whatevers. And, now think, what do we call those that lack a belief in gods/whatevers? That's right; Atheists.

Flag Fodaoson April 20, 2012 8:34 PM EDT

Religion is more than just a belief system; it is a culture, a community and a form of government of that community. Particularly in America  the community and culture  has  gained prominence. It is the community that gives “religion” it political strength. Belief within a community varies greatly.  In a congregation the range of belief can vary be from fundamentalism to near atheistic scholasticism". The social and cultural ties are stronger than the differences in belief.  


Unless  atheists  establish a community, “religion” will have more influence  

Flag JCarlin April 20, 2012 10:45 PM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:34PM, Fodaoson wrote:

Unless  atheists  establish a community, “religion” will have more influence 


Atheists have a strong community, it just doesn't meet in a church.  It meets on university campuses, concert halls, coffee houses, on line, sometimes on the streets.  The scary part is most of us have our elected officials on speed dial, and when an issue strikes our fancy we call. 

Flag Blü April 21, 2012 12:08 AM EDT

Fodaoson


Religion is more than just a belief system; it is a culture, a community and a form of government of that community. Particularly in America  the community and culture  has  gained prominence.


More accurately, religions are belief systems, they are cultures, they are communities, they each have a form of local government.  Not least in the US.

Flag Fodaoson April 21, 2012 3:22 AM EDT

Apr 21, 2012 -- 12:08AM, Blü wrote:


Fodaoson


Religion is more than just a belief system; it is a culture, a community and a form of government of that community. Particularly in America  the community and culture  has  gained prominence.


More accurately, religions are belief systems, they are cultures, they are communities, they each have a form of local government.  Not least in the US.





you say To-ma-toes, I say tom-at-o

Flag Fodaoson April 21, 2012 3:35 AM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 10:45PM, JCarlin wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:34PM, Fodaoson wrote:

Unless  atheists  establish a community, “religion” will have more influence 


Atheists have a strong community, it just doesn't meet in a church.  It meets on university campuses, concert halls, coffee houses, on line, sometimes on the streets.  The scary part is most of us have our elected officials on speed dial, and when an issue strikes our fancy we call. 




This bends toward contradicting what other atheists post on BN.   This indicates that for some atheism is just a “not” while for other it si a non-belief religion.   My posts,  on politics, religion, economics, etc.  And my opinions  are expressed in  academically , philosophically  and most literately  commonly defined  American English.  



Some poster use their own definition and as such we CAN  have no communication because of those posters use of near gibberish .[IMO]

Flag steven_guy April 21, 2012 4:49 AM EDT

Apr 21, 2012 -- 3:35AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 10:45PM, JCarlin wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:34PM, Fodaoson wrote:

Unless  atheists  establish a community, “religion” will have more influence 


Atheists have a strong community, it just doesn't meet in a church.  It meets on university campuses, concert halls, coffee houses, on line, sometimes on the streets.  The scary part is most of us have our elected officials on speed dial, and when an issue strikes our fancy we call. 




This bends toward contradicting what other atheists post on BN.   This indicates that for some atheism is just a “not” while for other it si a non-belief religion.   My posts,  on politics, religion, economics, etc.  And my opinions  are expressed in  academically , philosophically  and most literately  commonly defined  American English.  



Some poster use their own definition and as such we CAN  have no communication because of those posters use of near gibberish .[IMO]




What do YOU think atheism is, bucko?

Flag mountain_man April 21, 2012 11:20 AM EDT

Apr 21, 2012 -- 3:35AM, Fodaoson wrote:

This bends toward contradicting what other atheists post on BN.


What that comment shows is that you don't understand.Atheists are part of, and involved in, the larger community of humanity.


This indicates that for some atheism is just a “not” while for other it si a non-belief religion.   My posts,  on politics, religion, economics, etc.  And my opinions  are expressed in  academically , philosophically  and most literately  commonly defined  American English.


You may use proper English but the concepts expressed are not quite right. They show quite a bias and rarely coincide with reality.


Some poster use their own definition and as such we CAN  have no communication because of those posters use of near gibberish .[IMO]


All of the Atheists here use the the commonly used definitions. We all know what Atheism is and is not. It's only a few individuals, including you, that have a problem with it.

Flag mountain_man April 21, 2012 11:24 AM EDT

Apr 21, 2012 -- 4:49AM, steven_guy wrote:

What do YOU think atheism is, bucko?


Apparently some believe Atheism to be full of people that don't know what they believe or do not believe so they have to tell them. And for some reason they always get it wrong.


Those trying to tell Atheists what Atheism is, or is not, should shut up and pay attention to what Atheists have to say about themselves. They might learn something.


I know.... I ask too much of them.


Flag steven_guy April 21, 2012 3:27 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2012 -- 11:24AM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 4:49AM, steven_guy wrote:

What do YOU think atheism is, bucko?


Apparently some believe Atheism to be full of people that don't know what they believe or do not believe so they have to tell them. And for some reason they always get it wrong.


Those trying to tell Atheists what Atheism is, or is not, should shut up and pay attention to what Atheists have to say about themselves. They might learn something.


I know.... I ask too much of them.





I agree with you and I agree that it is possibly too much to ask.

Flag mountain_man April 21, 2012 6:37 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2012 -- 3:27PM, steven_guy wrote:

I agree with you and I agree that it is possibly too much to ask.


That's the sad part; this is the 21st Century and we're supposed to be an advanced civilization. We should have put all these superstitions behind us long ago.

Flag Blü April 21, 2012 8:27 PM EDT

Fodaoson


Some poster use their own definition and as such we CAN  have no communication because of those posters use of near gibberish .[IMO]


Whom do you have in mind?

Flag mountain_man April 21, 2012 10:20 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2012 -- 8:27PM, Blü wrote:

Fodaoson


Some poster use their own definition and as such we CAN  have no communication because of those posters use of near gibberish .[IMO]


Whom do you have in mind?


Anyone that disagrees with him.

Flag Fodaoson April 22, 2012 12:33 AM EDT

Apr 21, 2012 -- 8:27PM, Blü wrote:


Fodaoson


Some poster use their own definition and as such we CAN  have no communication because of those posters use of near gibberish .[IMO]


Whom do you have in mind?








Apr 21, 2012 -- 10:20PM, mountain_man wrote:


Who-  pronoun ; subjective;


 Whom-:objective case of  Who


  Those posters who will say “that’s  not  what I mean  when I use…”  when some on uses a dictionary definition.     





Flag mountain_man April 22, 2012 12:56 AM EDT

Apr 22, 2012 -- 12:33AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Apr 21, 2012 -- 10:20PM, mountain_man wrote:


Who-  pronoun ; subjective;


 Whom-:objective case of  Who


  Those posters who will say “that’s  not  what I mean  when I use…”  when some on uses a dictionary definition.    



I did not write the above. If you can't get the attributions correct how are we supposed to understand YOUR gibberish? If you cannot figure out how to use the simple quote function, how are we supposed to believe you can understand more complex ideas? Keep trying, maybe some day you'll get it right.

Flag Blü April 22, 2012 1:49 AM EDT

Fodaoson


Those posters who will say “that’s  not  what I mean  when I use…”  when some on uses a dictionary definition.


These days I've found myself in the same place, with people telling me what I have to mean by 'Christian', 'atheist', 'materialist', 'belief', 'faith', 'sin', 'immaterial', 'objective' and so on.  What can one do to encourage conversation but put one's meaning plainly on the table?


It's quite odd to tell someone I'm a materialist and receive a vehement reply informing me I'm not.



Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook