The End of Christian America

[TheLastMohican]

Newsweek article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Rudy]

An article both uplfiting and sobering in various ways. Thanks.

What strikes me the most is that 48 percent of Americans think that religion "can answer all or most of today's problems." And 48 is a historic low. :stunned:

[TheLastMohican]

What strikes me the most is that 48 percent of Americans think that religion "can answer all or most of today's problems." And 48 is a historic low. :stunned:
I know, what's up with that? Even at the peak of my fundamentalism, I would not have said that.

I'll have more thoughts on the article tomorrow.

[Nemesis]

*Breathes a large sigh of relief and very cautiously eyes the bottle of champagne...*

[Undead Bonzi]

Hard to call 15% of a population identifying as atheist/agnostic as equating to the 'Death of Christianity'. Though to me this decline doesn't come as a surprise, ultra religious G.W. Bush and his blunders hurt the Christian cause more than he ever helped it. I think these polls simply represent a backlash against the effects of recent years Christian fundamentalist power grab. I think those recent events are skewing the current poles a bit though I have no doubt that religion is on the wane to a degree.

What makes me nervous now is how the hardcore fundies are going to respond if the trend continues. Some already refer to themselves and their children as 'Soldiers of God'...what happens if they decide their kingdom is under attack? I think religion is too entrenched in the U.S. to die a quiet death and that is cause for worry.

[DanteFalling]

I don't feel odd about the idea that an applied metaphysics used somehow in every facet of a person's life couldn't be their means to "answer all or most of today's problems" as well as be their means to better their world.

Rote memorization of mantras and dogmas, however isn't what matters to me.

Also, if a metaphysics works throughout time, then it's likely because it is individualized, updated, rethought, about the "spirit of the laws," and logically sound. If not, metaphysical systems tend to disappear because those types kill each other off.

One person who chooses to believe in Christianity might start the Inquisition.

Another might start a beneficial charity helping millions of orphans avoid starvation, gain jobs, and help contribute to their societies in their own ways.

One convert to Islam might choose to invoke jihad, while another might choose to help the suffering.

Just because these easy labels squish members into boxes never requires they hold to the same beliefs or reasons behind their actions.

[True Rune]

I'm Christian (How sad.) and I never believed in this "Christian America" thing. (At least not in present day.) Still, people will have their gods. :P

[jakeordie]

Newsweek article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Made me think of this;

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Zombicide]

The end of Christian America saddens me to no end, I despise memetic atheism and lesser forms of theism are often less indicative/warning of the Christian ilk's inherent stupidity. I hate secularization so. I love that America is still such an excellent place to study the genetic difference and or if one is of the Christian perspective i.e. the Calvinism of it. Well, I suppose this does have its up side. . .though I've doubts it is worth it

[Azel]

The end of Christian America saddens me to no end, I despise memetic atheism and lesser forms of theism are often less indicative/warning of the Christian ilk's inherent stupidity. I hate secularization so. I love that America is still such an excellent place to study the genetic difference and or if one is of the Christian perspective i.e. the Calvinism of it. Well, I suppose this does have its up side. . .though I've doubts it is worth it

Why do you hate secularism? Looking for natural causes instead of supernatural causes is a good thing the way I see it. Why say that variation in snow flakes came from Ullr if we can use reason and determine that it came from biocomplexity in water molecules?

[Indy]

So the US is getting another step closer to looking like Western Europe.
There will still be a lot of Catholic Latino immigrants to keep up the stats though.

The most interesting figures were that 76% still consider themselves Christian.
And only 3.6 million agnostics and atheists is really low, about 1.5%. And, like Rudy said, that 48% is a new low of people considering God the answer to all problems. What the hell?

[thod]

Western Europe was infected with the Christianity meme for thousands of years though. It has developed resistance to it now. All societies will eventually become post christian. So many of the the questions it answered have now been shown to have different answers through research. It seems odd that it still has a hold on so many people. Its simply a sign of America growing up and losing their need for a paternal messiah. I don't care if Jesus was sent to save me, I have no need to be saved, I exist and that is enough.

Some individuals will always seek justification outside of themselves. New cults will spring up becoming mainstream religions over time. History show this. These new religions will have to incorporate our current understanding of the world. Since christianity was wrong about so much, it has been shown not to be divine revelation. It was merely a memetic device to give consolation and hope to the unhappy.

[Hanfgeist]

They should include an article in the UN and EU charters on fundamental human rights that states:

"You have the right to freedom from religion and religio-fascists"

[True Rune]

So the US is getting another step closer to looking like Western Europe.
There will still be a lot of Catholic Latino immigrants to keep up the stats though.

The most interesting figures were that 76% still consider themselves Christian.
And only 3.6 million agnostics and atheists is really low, about 1.5%. And, like Rudy said, that 48% is a new low of people considering God the answer to all problems. What the hell?
You might be over-estimating the "answer to all problems" claim. Or maybe not. I'd like to know exactly what they mean by that. Does God tie your shoes or just general trust for life?

[TheLastMohican]

The rate of decline of theism in the U.S. is likely to increase during the next decade. Christians might even be in the minority by 2030. We might have some very interesting developments in politics resulting from the second major divide of society: Christians versus non-Christians, in addition to the current political divide between conservatives and liberals.
Of course the majority of the remaining Christians would be on the conservative side, but considering that about half of the current population would not consider voting for an atheist, there would be significant frictions within the liberal spectrum, with many liberals resenting the new political popularity of atheists in their midst. There might be attempts to form a separate liberal Christian party. The same might occur among the conservative atheists, who might be frustrated by Christians dominating their party leadership.
I feel very fortunate to be able to observe these patterns in my lifetime.

Besides the political shakeups, how would the culture change? The decline of theism might be seen as a kind of enlightenment, but other than bringing us closer to a separation of church and state and away from a general taboo on atheism, I doubt that it will improve much. The true intellectual awakening is going on right now, and will probably soon be over, as the main source of atheists shifts from critically thinking converts to indoctrinated children. People aren't getting any smarter; they still tend to think like their parents and peers, and the herd mentality will soon become the driving force behind the decline of theism, as later generations come of age in more secular environment. Some might be loathe to admit it, but "free thought" is just not a sustainable ideal. If atheism become prominent enough, the Christians might be seen as the intellectuals of society, having studied an area of which most were ignorant.

What about the causes behind the current trend? I think we might owe much of it to YouTube. Since it was founded in 2005, it has become a massively popular forum of opinions, and, I believe, one of the biggest influences on popular opinions regarding religion. I would estimate 5-10 million people have taken interest in the YouTube debates on religion, and that has boosted the popularity of atheist authors like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett (whose books on the subject have all been published in the last five years). In the absence of a similar source for loads of information and diversity of opinions, YouTube has actually become a repected debating ground, and one of the few places where atheists dominate.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 67 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Of course these articles spawn television debates:

Ken Blackwell vs. Christopher Hitchens (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Rudy]

TheLastMohican added to this post, 67 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Of course these articles spawn television debates:

Ken Blackwell vs. Christopher Hitchens (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

God I love Christopher Hitchens. If only he weren't so unattractive, I'd probably crush on him.

[Lucid]

God I love Christopher Hitchens. If only he weren't so unattractive, I'd probably crush on him.

I actually do have quite a crush on him. I thought he was very attractive on Bill Maher the other week. But then I think smart is sexy. :lovestruck:

And I'm very relieved to hear that "Christian America" is on the decline. It's not that I have a problem with Christians, but I would like to see some more secularism in this country. Not that secularism is necessarily going to follow a downswing in Christianity, but I do think it will help.

[Rudy]

I actually do have quite a crush on him. I thought he was very attractive on Bill Maher the other week. But then I think smart is sexy. :lovestruck:

It's true that smarts and eloquence make up for a lot. :) He's even more charming in person.

Was that the episode where he starting arguing with that idiotic rapper?

And I'm very relieved to hear that "Christian America" is on the decline. It's not that I have a problem with Christians, but I would like to see some more secularism in this country. Not that secularism is necessarily going to follow a downswing in Christianity, but I do think it will help.

More on topic, I agree with this comment. It's not lack of Christianity that I want, so much as lack of Christianity in politics.

[Lucid]

It's true that smarts and eloquence make up for a lot. :) He's even more charming in person.

Was that the episode where he starting arguing with that idiotic rapper?

Yes, Mos Def (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and Salman Rushdie were on that one as well. I thought Mos Def had some really good points though and in general I rather respect him. He and Rushdie both had good things to contribute, though the 4 of them (including Maher) became split on the topic of religion if I remember it correctly. Good TV. Hitchens, of course, is awesome.

More on topic, I agree with this comment. It's not lack of Christianity that I want, so much as lack of Christianity in politics.

Yes. People may do whatever they like in private, but public and social policy should not be based on religion.

That being said, I think the religious in general (though far from all of them of course) tend to be less adept at critical thinking than the non-religious. Therefore, I think any reduction in religion, even on a personal level, is a good thing. Again though, I'm speaking in very broad generalizations. One doesn't have to be atheistic or agnostic to be capable of higher reasoning or critical thinking, nor do those two things really guarantee anything of the sort. Though there is some correlation I believe.

[Rudy]

Yes, Mos Def (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and Salman Rushdie were on that one as well. I thought Mos Def had some really good points though and in general I rather respect him. He and Rushdie both had good things to contribute, though the 4 of them (including Maher) became split on the topic of religion if I remember it correctly. Good TV. Hitchens, of course, is awesome.
I have no knowledge about Mos Def outside of that episode, perhaps he'd impress me more in other venues. What strong points do you think he had?

That being said, I think the religious in general (though far from all of them of course) tend to be less adept at critical thinking than the non-religious. Therefore, I think any reduction in religion, even on a personal level, is a good thing. Again though, I'm speaking in very broad generalizations. One doesn't have to be atheistic or agnostic to be capable of higher reasoning or critical thinking, nor do those two things really guarantee anything of the sort. Though there is some correlation I believe.
Agreed. A general reduction in religiosity would please me as well, for much the same reason, it's just not my primary concern.

[nacht]

That being said, I think the religious in general (though far from all of them of course) tend to be less adept at critical thinking than the non-religious. Therefore, I think any reduction in religion, even on a personal level, is a good thing. Again though, I'm speaking in very broad generalizations. One doesn't have to be atheistic or agnostic to be capable of higher reasoning or critical thinking, nor do those two things really guarantee anything of the sort. Though there is some correlation I believe.



I'm not sure I agree with this "in general," because I think that it reverses the order of causality.

Being religious doesn't necessarily make someone less adept at critical thinking, but being less adept at critical thinking may mean that the individual is more drawn to religion, while being more adept at critical thinking may correlate with being less drawn to religion. This especially goes for certain branches of fundamentalist Christianity that are becoming increasingly common (according to the ARIS study).

Marcello Truzzi once commented:


Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.


Emphasis added.

This really makes me question the causal order in any correlation that exists here. If my guess--and it is a guess, at the moment--is correct, the reducing "religiosity" won't actually improve critical thinking, because it doesn't fix the root problem: a lack of critical thinking skills.

[Rudy]

This really makes me question the causal order in any correlation that exists here. If my guess--and it is a guess, at the moment--is correct, the reducing "religiosity" won't actually improve critical thinking, because it doesn't fix the root problem: a lack of critical thinking skills.

I agree 100%. The point is, however, that a lowering of religiosity may be a good indicator of an increase in critical thinking, not that it would cause such an increase.

[Lucid]

I agree 100%. The point is, however, that a lowering of religiosity may be a good indicator of an increase in critical thinking, not that it would cause such an increase.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I tried to be careful to point this out, but it's possible that I did so poorly. And again, I'm painting with incredible broad strokes.

Rudy: I'd have to see the episode again to list out Mos Def's good points. I'm just speaking of my impression as I remember it. Although I do get Bill Maher on podcast, so if I get the chance I'll go back and give it a listen. :)

[nacht]

I agree 100%. The point is, however, that a lowering of religiosity may be a good indicator of an increase in critical thinking, not that it would cause such an increase.

Or it simply indicates that the fitting function has a confounding variable, which I find more likely. So your base populations don't change, but the correlation between them changes over time based on some other factor (welcome to confounding variables).

This would mean that a drop in religious belief--on a population-level--doesn't imply an increase in critical thinking skills. This would imply that it is basically is a null indicator.

I also find it more likely--given our current school systems and culture--than the hypothesis that our critical thinking skills as a nation are improving.

[Lucid]

I also find it more likely--given our current school systems and culture--than the hypothesis that our critical thinking skills as a nation are improving.

I think that, generally speaking, more critical thinking does lead to a decrease in religion. This breaks down on an individual level, of course, so that there are many religious people who are awesome at critical thinking, and many non-religious people who freaking suck at it.

But I also find it likely that our critical thinking skills as a nation are improving. The advance of the skepticism movement is an example of this. I think it's slow... very slow... and still on a rather small scale, but I think it will improve greatly over the next decade or so.

At least I hope so :)

[Rudy]

Or it simply indicates that the fitting function has a confounding variable, which I find more likely. So your base populations don't change, but the correlation between them changes over time based on some other factor (welcome to confounding variables).

It's certainly possible; I'm not ruling out confounding variables. I think, however, that a decrease in religiosity would not be a bad thing in any way, and it may indicate a very good thing, so I would be pleased to see it.

[PunkinA]

I am saddened by the waning Christian position. I am not Christian myself, but I share in what many consider "Christian Values" I suppose we all do to some degree. I guess I don't hear many people arguing that we should increase suffering.

I'm saddened more because the Christians have done it to themselves. They propose moral solutions, but they also declare absolute authority in dictacting the solutions. This sucks. Christians not only weaken their political presence by acting self-righteous, they negatively affect the expression of their values. Christianity has sheltered some very valuble solutions to moral complex issues, which are failing in our political arena due to association. Many ideals are marginalized because they are associated with a failed Christian way of thinking.

What's worse, I think when Christians find themselves in a minority, their behaviors will become more radical, more volitile, and more dangerous for the rest of us.

[nacht]

I think that, generally speaking, more critical thinking does lead to a decrease in religion. This breaks down on an individual level, of course, so that there are many religious people who are awesome at critical thinking, and many non-religious people who freaking suck at it.

But I also find it likely that our critical thinking skills as a nation are improving. The advance of the skepticism movement is an example of this. I think it's slow... very slow... and still on a rather small scale, but I think it will improve greatly over the next decade or so.

At least I hope so :)

Unfortunately I find many self-proclaimed "skeptics" are actually pseudoskeptics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) who haven't learned anything about science or critical thinking since the 8th grade. They have essentially replaced "religion" with a dogmatic belief in "skepticism."

An example of where this attitude comes up is in any discussion of Psi, where most people are not willing to actually discuss evidence and aren't even willing to educate themselves to the point where they could understand the evidence (or--even!--understand basic statistics). They merely dismiss it out of hand.

We see it in evolution discussions all of the time, where most people don't understand evolution well enough to discuss even the basics of modern evolutionary synthesis (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (let alone debate it intelligently), but blindly believe in it and lash out at people asking reasonable questions (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I put forward that this is no better than blindly and literally interpreting a holy book, and it permeates the modern "lay-skeptic" movement.

Not to mention the number of times I see logical fallacies from people who by all rights should know better... on this board >_> <_< >_>

[Adarasnow]

I'm a Christian. I find this all utter nonsense. This is the souless media saying these things. The media has been souless from its existience in any religion and culture.

[Rudy]

I'm a Christian. I find this all utter nonsense. This is the souless media saying these things. The media has been souless from its existience in any religion and culture.

Just to be clear, you think the media is intentionally skewing the poll results?

[Lucid]

Unfortunately I find many self-proclaimed "skeptics" are actually pseudoskeptics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) who haven't learned anything about science or critical thinking since the 8th grade. They have essentially replaced "religion" with a dogmatic belief in "skepticism."

An example of where this attitude comes up is in any discussion of Psi, where most people are not willing to actually discuss evidence and aren't even willing to educate themselves to the point where they could understand the evidence (or--even!--understand basic statistics). They merely dismiss it out of hand.

We see it in evolution discussions all of the time, where most people don't understand evolution well enough to discuss even the basics of modern evolutionary synthesis (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (let alone debate it intelligently), but blindly believe in it and lash out at people asking reasonable questions (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I put forward that this is no better than blindly and literally interpreting a holy book, and it permeates the modern "lay-skeptic" movement.

Not to mention the number of times I see logical fallacies from people who by all rights should know better... on this board >_> <_< >_>

All of the above is true, but that doesn't mean that skepticism and critical thinking aren't on the rise, relatively speaking, just that they are not used perfectly and that many people still don't understand the basics.

[TheLastMohican]

Rudy: I'd have to see the episode again to list out Mos Def's good points. I'm just speaking of my impression as I remember it. Although I do get Bill Maher on podcast, so if I get the chance I'll go back and give it a listen. :)

For anyone else who is interested:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eternaltriangle]

Why do you hate secularism? Looking for natural causes instead of supernatural causes is a good thing the way I see it. Why say that variation in snow flakes came from Ullr if we can use reason and determine that it came from biocomplexity in water molecules?

I think it is ridiculous to assume that most people are religious "because it provides a good explanation of the existence of the earth, etc." Yet I have heard echoes of this inane straw man over and over again. People holding certain beliefs rooted in faith and not fact on matters that are of extremely little consequence on a daily basis for the vast majority of people (maybe if you are a molecular geneticist it makes a difference) is not contrary to the march of scientific progress. I am sure that even some Mormons doubt the story of Joseph Smith. At the same time they can look around and see a society they built - despite continuing prejudice - of people that are kind and virtuous.

If we ignore the extremists on both sides it should become obvious that religion and science are on the same side. It is obvious that the earth is not 6000 years old, but then it should also be obvious to anybody reading the bible that it is not meant to be a literal text. Even Mike Huckabee doesn't think it should be taken literally. Science moves in lockstep with religion, however, as it demonstrates that the universe is ordered, patterned, and governed by universal laws. Certainly Pope John Paul II looked at evolution, accepted the science and saw God at work. I mean at the end of the day - what happened BEFORE the big bang.

Yet some people don't want to show any quarter to "the enemy". For people in Gen Y, the highest virtue is intelligence. Who is smart? Well, scientists for sure. So lets associate ourselves with SCIENCE! as much as possible. Lets accept all sorts of facts of SCIENCE! without a lot of actual knowledge. Lets hate people who hold any belief not vindicated by SCIENCE! Never mind that if anybody applied that level of hyper-rationality to facets of their own lives they would find much to attack.

Religion is an important institution, and we should carefully consider the implications of its seeming death. Dawkins assures us that religion is unnecessary, and that we can all be secular humanists and it'll be awesome because moral values are the product of evolution. Fair enough, but our religious institutions are also the product of thousands of years of evolution. When they die, there will be ramifications - good and bad. One of the problems of our modern hyper-rationality is that we put everything in terms of the individual. A society, however, is more than the sum of its parts - you can nourish individuals while other units wither away (for instance, the women's rights movement, while a positive development, has had many negative side-effects like sky-rocketing divorce rates, childhood obesity, etc.).

Indeed, the decline of religion may imperil Dawkins' hopes for secular humanism. Dawkins argues that altruism is essentially genetic, because having some proportion of altruists in a society is optimal. The problem is that the main mechanisms of survival for our most important social institution (the state) no longer operate (eg. interstate warfare is rare, and for weaker states, the status quo is often defended by force). Moreover, religion offers people that do have the "altruistic gene" greater prestige and thus greater reproductive potential. Secular humanists need a replacement, otherwise, rational self-interest followers will eventually overtake altruists by an overwhelming margin.

Environmentalism seems to be one place where many secular humanists have turned to. However, as an ethos it also has problems if it is to be the future engine of altruism. For one thing, most environmentalists consider childbirth somewhat selfish, because of our ecological footprints. Moreover, because, unlike religion, environmentalism offers only a narrow range of issues, it is easy for non-altruists to fake it. Religion, because it is all-encompassing is much harder to fake - the guy who pretends to be Christian to get girls is done in by the fact that his inherently un-Christian objective requires him to give himself away in the course of his pursuit. Finally, as much as Christians are singled out as being "against progress", environmentalism offers a far stronger case of a group of people many of whom are united in a quest to halt human development.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 6 minutes and 26 seconds later...


I'm saddened more because the Christians have done it to themselves. They propose moral solutions, but they also declare absolute authority in dictacting the solutions. This sucks. Christians not only weaken their political presence by acting self-righteous, they negatively affect the expression of their values. Christianity has sheltered some very valuble solutions to moral complex issues, which are failing in our political arena due to association. Many ideals are marginalized because they are associated with a failed Christian way of thinking.


Could you be more specific, please? I don't think Christians have a monopoly on being self-righteous.

[TheLastMohican]

I think that, generally speaking, more critical thinking does lead to a decrease in religion. This breaks down on an individual level, of course, so that there are many religious people who are awesome at critical thinking, and many non-religious people who freaking suck at it.

But I also find it likely that our critical thinking skills as a nation are improving. The advance of the skepticism movement is an example of this. I think it's slow... very slow... and still on a rather small scale, but I think it will improve greatly over the next decade or so.

At least I hope so :)

As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think that this rise of secularism or skepticism means that the population as a whole is getting any smarter. Critical thinking skills could be improved through better instruction, since a lot of intelligence is wasted in our current education system. It still seems unlikely that that is actually happening, though. Atheism can be, and is spread as a meme, just as religions have been for millennia. Skepticism is a trait generally found in those holding minority positions, having little to do with what those positions actually are (within reason, excluding the truly absurd). As atheism becomes more common, the average atheist's critical thinking skills will probably worsen.

The question of our intelligence over time is an interesting one, however, and so I have started a separate thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) for that discussion.

[eternaltriangle]

All of the above is true, but that doesn't mean that skepticism and critical thinking aren't on the rise, relatively speaking, just that they are not used perfectly and that many people still don't understand the basics.

Actually it does show a case where skepticism is not on the rise (particularly if you read the post Nacht linked to).

If skepticism were on the rise people would look at religion, and say "there is insufficient evidence to confirm the hypothesis that God exists, that there is a heaven and that God created the universe."

However the usual reaction is for people to argue that God didn't create the universe, that there is no heaven and that God never existed. That is not skepticism, that is positing an alternative hypothesis (generally without evidence, or worse, citing the lack of evidence for the affirmative as evidence for the negative). Agnosticism, but not atheism, is the natural position of the skeptic. Agnosticism may be on the rise, but most of its converts were probably only nominally religious in the first place (agnostics that went to church).

[Lucid]

A few of you are totally misunderstanding what I'm saying. :(

I'm not saying that we, as a society or as a species, are getting more intelligent.

Nor am I saying that skepticism or critical thinking skills are at such a point where they make any noticeable difference in society.

What I am saying, is that 10 years ago these things, while of course they existed, were not things that most laypeople were exposed to. There was no 'skeptical movement' and the idea of 'lay-skepticism' as we understand the term today and as it was used by nacht earlier in the thread, was still unheard of.

This idea is still very much in it's infancy and it remains to be seen whether it will actually influence society as a whole at all, much less for the good. But it is more prevalent now than it was at any other point in my own life time.

And just to be as clear as possible, if any kind of societal trend to become MORE skeptical and to engage in more critical thinking were ever to gain some momentum, it would take a lot longer than 10 years to make any kind of noticeable impact. Humans are, by nature, rather irrational creatures on the whole. Religion is really the least of our worries.

[errrzarrr]

End of X-tian America? I dont think so. America is more and more fanatic everytime.

[Rudy]

End of X-tian America? I dont think so. America is more and more fanatic everytime.

Evidence?

[Tocsin]

As long as there is ignorance, there will be superstition.

As long as there is superstition, there will be people who will succumb to the promised post-mortem paradises that organized religion sells.

As long as there are chumps, there will be people who buy the magic beans that will take them to magical kingdoms in the clouds.

[eternaltriangle]

End of X-tian America? I dont think so. America is more and more fanatic everytime.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Of people that are religious, Catholics and mainline Protestants are less likely to go to church weekly, evangelicals slightly more.

As to whether Americans as a whole are more likely to attend church weely, it is down among both men and women.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is somewhat ironic, errrzarrr, that while you seem to deride others for having beliefs contrary to evidence, your own beliefs are well, not supported by the evidence.

Let he who is without cognitive dissonance throw the first stone!





eternaltriangle added to this post, 15 minutes and 15 seconds later...


As long as there are chumps, there will be people who buy the magic beans that will take them to magical kingdoms in the clouds.

Look, atheists are buying into something without evidence too. At least when Christians do it, they hope for something actually desirable, and adopt a belief system that - if they adhere to it - makes them better people.

(ps. for the record I am a lapsed Catholic who only goes to church at Christmas, but I think a lot of the animosity Christians face these days is extremely unwarranted. I have met far more self-righteous atheists than I have Mormons)

[thod]

Look, atheists are buying into something without evidence too. At least when Christians do it, they hope for something actually desirable, and adopt a belief system that - if they adhere to it - makes them better people

Not at all, this is like calling 'bald' a hairstyle. Atheism is not an alternative religion since it does not propose any entities, purposes or outcomes. Atheists do not define themselves as better people, since better requires a scale on which that can be judged. The presence of such an absolute scale would be replacing one God with another.

Faced with the multiplicity of contradictory theories, they start from the basis that all are false. Then they decide from real world evidence what is true. Note that what is true does not require knowledge of why that is true, or attach any meaning.

Perhaps you should self analyse why you wish to be a better person, your motivations, your definitions of better etc.

[mnmeq]

Some good points here. To this day I'm still struck by the paradox of professional scientists and engineers, who by virtue of their profession must be very conscious and methodical about logic and causality, being devout believers.
There is a deep basic emotional need (security, authority figure, fear of death) that varies from person to person that is capable of selectively overshadowing critical thinking abilities, which probably survives by virtue of the benefits of shared belief cohesion.

[LaoTzu]

This isn't the first time I've heard that Christianity is on the decline in the US.

They say it every time a democrat is in the White House...


(PS: Hitchens is a douche....)

[Tocsin]

...atheists are buying into something without evidence too.

Since when is NOT buying into something a form of buying into something?

Its like trying to describe people who have never even SEEN as ocean as un-surfing surfers.

For the last time (hopefully), a lack of belief is not a form of belief.

[nacht]

Since when is NOT buying into something a form of buying into something?

Its like trying to describe people who have never even SEEN as ocean as un-surfing surfers.

For the last time (hopefully), a lack of belief is not a form of belief.

Lack of belief isn't a form of belief. An agnostic position indicates a lack of belief.

Disbelief, on the other hand, does indicate a belief. The difference between "I do not know if there is a god, but have seen no evidence that convinces me" and "no gods exist."

[Tocsin]

Lack of belief isn't a form of belief. An agnostic position indicates a lack of belief.

Disbelief, on the other hand, does indicate a belief. The difference between "I do not know if there is a god, but have seen no evidence that convinces me" and "no gods exist."

Disbelief noun
1. doubt about the truth of something 2. a rejection of belief

(Hopefully you will note number two... a r-e-j-e-c-t-i-o-n of belief... not a f-o-r-m of belief.

Agnostic: word history

The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a- , meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So "a-gnostic" literally tranlates into "without knowing" or "without knowledge"

**SIGH** :rolleyes:

Remedial English lesson over... there will be a test later on.

[nacht]

Disbelief noun
1. doubt about the truth of something 2. a rejection of belief

(Hopefully you will note number two... a r-e-j-e-c-t-i-o-n of belief... not a f-o-r-m of belief.


Rejection of belief is a form of belief, because you have made a claim and therefor bear a burden of proof.

Witness the difference here:

"I do not believe in quantum physics, I have seen no evidence that convinces me."

"Quantum physics is wrong."

The latter indicates a rejection of belief, yet we can all agree that it puts forward a hypothesis and bears a burden of proof. The former statement bears no specific burden of proof, and can be described as a "lack of belief." The latter is a rejection of belief, and is in and of itself a belief (you believe that QM is not true).

Now if you want to take what some modern atheists call a "weak atheist" position (the term being invented in the 90s by atheists), that's another matter, but that is not substantially separated from an true agnostic position.

Also, since you love dictionaries, let's throw in my dictionary's definition of atheist (New Oxford American Dictionary):

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.


See? belief



Agnostic: word history



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So "a-gnostic" literally tranlates into "without knowing" or "without knowledge"

**SIGH** :rolleyes:

Remedial English lesson over... there will be a test later on.

Your remedial English lesson needs work. Thomas Henry Huxley said:


When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.


So yes, "agnostic" indicates a lack of belief but not a rejection of belief. Seems pretty clear from both definition and early usage. It is not a belief, but the absence of a belief.

The rejection of a belief, however, is in itself a belief. It is the belief that another position is incorrect.

[Tocsin]

"agnostic" indicates a lack of belief but not a rejection of belief.

What Huxley said (from your own quote even):

It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.

So Huxley term refers to a rejection of "supposed" otherworldy knowledge... which can also be described as disbelief, or at least a lack of knowledge or acknowledgement of the "gnosis" found in religious doctrines.

Numerous studies throughout the twentieth century have shown a high correlation between skepticism of religion and disbelief in religious doctrines within institutions of higher learning.

Its clear that what we should be hoping for is not "the end of Christian America," but "the end of ignorance in America."

The weeds of ridiculous beliefs, from archaic hypotheses about the origins of the world (and man) and supposed afterlifes and celestial dieties, all the way to notions of racial superiority or national supremacy, all flourish primarily with the application of the fertilizer of ignorance and superstition.

When the fertilizer is removed - the weeds will begin to wither.

[nacht]

So Huxley term refers to a rejection of "supposed" otherworldy knowledge... which can also be described as disbelief, or at least a lack of knowledge or acknowledgement of the "gnosis" found in religious doctrines.


That is clearly not, however, the atheistic position of "the theory or belief that God does not exist," which is what this entire conversation is about, in context.

Again, since you love dictionaries so much:

disbelief |ˌdisbəˈlēf|
noun
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real


Which clearly fits my statements regarding it being a belief, even if you are defining it differently.

This is your remedial English lesson: words rarely have absolute meanings that are universally agreed on.



Numerous studies throughout the twentieth century have shown a high correlation between skepticism of religion and disbelief in religious doctrines within institutions of higher learning.


The price of tea in China has what to do with anything?

We also see a correlation between Judaism and institutions of higher learning, but it is a stretch to say that becoming a doctor makes one Jewish.

Yes, there is a correlation, but what of it? That doesn't say a single thing about the general population, and it doesn't indicate that becoming an atheist makes one more rational, or that an increase in atheism and nonreligion means that the US as a whole is becoming more rational.


The weeds of ridiculous beliefs, from archaic hypotheses about the origins of the world (and man) and supposed afterlifes and celestial dieties, all the way to notions of racial superiority or national supremacy, all flourish primarily with the application of the fertilizer of ignorance and superstition.

When the fertilizer is removed - the weeds will begin to wither.

...and woosh, you run off of a cliff.

You seem to have this obsession with assuming that people have said things they did not say. In case you haven't noticed, pretty much everyone agrees that an increase in critical thinking is a good thing. There's some dispute over whether it is increasing, and whether the degree of religiosity in the US is an indicator of anything whatsoever.

You assert that it is true, but the rational position would be to agree that we don't actually know. Perhaps what we will actually see is a rise of Buddhism (from 0.2% of the population in 1990 to 0.5% of the population in 2008) or Other religions (from 0.8% of the population in 1990 to 1.2% in 2008) if people become "more rational."

[Tocsin]

...words rarely have absolute meanings that are universally agreed on.


Agreed, which is why so many people have differing assumptions about what "atheism" means... which is why it is better to go someplace that gives a more thorough examination of the ideas behind a word than just a dictionary:

Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

...there is a correlation, but what of it?


Keep reading.

That doesn't say a single thing about the general population...


Because it wasn't meant to. I was speaking about highly intelligent, trained, and competent people... i.e. not the general public.

...it doesn't indicate that becoming an atheist makes one more rational, or that an increase in atheism and nonreligion means that the US as a whole is becoming more rational.

Because the correlation is the inverse of what you suggest. The reality is not that atheists are prevalent in academia because only atheists seek or are allowed in those positions: the reality is that theism and religious beliefs are less prevalent in higher academia because that group of trained, intelligent people are more rational and therefore less religious.

To sum up, the population would not be more rational because they are becoming more atheistic, the would be more atheistic (or more precisely - less theistic) if they were becoming more rational.

And I don't buy the premise that the decline in religious inclination in the U.S. is resulting from an increase in rationalism. The present decline in public regard for religion stems primarily from the fact that during the last eight years under the Bush Administration, faith and religion were given high regard by the Bush Administration (and enjoyed large popular support - at the start - from religious conservatives), and they managed to nearly fuck up every aspect of America, from civil rights to military preparedness to the economy.

The current disillusionment with the value of belief comes from the fact that when it comes to making decisions, it has become painfully obvious (as we have witnessed in the last eight years) that competence and intelligence are much more important than faith or confidence in one's convictions.

[eternaltriangle]

Since when is NOT buying into something a form of buying into something?

Its like trying to describe people who have never even SEEN as ocean as un-surfing surfers.

For the last time (hopefully), a lack of belief is not a form of belief.

Okay, now you like science right? Scientists like hypothesis testing. Let us posit a hypothesis, H1: god exists, against some null hypothesis, H0, god does not exist.

So we crunch the numbers, and get a t-statistic of .75 - there isn't statistically significant evidence for the existence of god. Which statement is more accurate:

1. Therefore the null hypothesis is correct, there is no god.
2. Therefore we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

The answer, clearly, is 2. Atheists can demonstrate that there is minimal evidence of the existence of god. They have thus far failed, however, to demonstrate any evidence of God's non-existence, however. If they did produce such evidence, (ie. if they produced a large negative t-statistic in the hypothesis test - okay, it would probably be a Wald statistic since we are debating something with a logistic distribution) one would have a stronger case for atheism versus the status quo.

Of course, if you have evidence that God doesn't exist, please share it with us.

[Tocsin]

...if you have evidence that God doesn't exist, please share it with us.

I don't have evidence that "god doesn't exist," and have never even claimed to.

I also don't have evidence the "vampires don't exist" or "Santa Claus doesn't exist" or that "Oz doesn't exist."

I choose not to believe in any of those things, including god, because I am aware of the human capacity for imagination and fiction.

Atheists can demonstrate that there is minimal evidence of the existence of god.

Do you think there is any evidence, minimal or otherwise, for the existence of God? If so, what do you think it is?

[eternaltriangle]

Do you think there is any evidence, minimal or otherwise, for the existence of God? If so, what do you think it is?

In the case of Santa Claus you have pretty strong evidence that he doesn't exist - namely in that the people that give you presents claiming to be him, later admit that it was them, not Santa. Moreover, Santa is hypothesized to be a real, tangible being (as are Vampires, and I suppose Oz). As such, Santa is subject to the limits of technology, or logistic problems like the fact that the North pole is under water. Very few people argue that God is a tangible or physical being, rather he is more of a concept. I tend to see God as the action of various universal laws like gravity (or the goodness of certain near-universally accepted - at least among humans - moral principles).

I have no definitive evidence for or against the existence of God, whatsoever. I tend to think that the fact that the universe is patterned and governed by universal laws might be mildly indicative of conscious creation (or one could see those universal laws AS God), but even I don't find that to be very good evidence that God exists.

If I were to base my beliefs solely on evidence, agnosticism (a belief that there might or might not be a god) would be the only logical conclusion. It is, of course, not really a conclusion, just an honest admission that I don't have evidence either way.

Of course, I think part of the problem is that religion has historically performed two roles - the first, explaining the origin of things, was perhaps of historical importance (in establishing the authority of a given religion) is not very important any more. I think intelligent design folks are missing the point by trying to force a square peg into a round hole of empirical reality. Indeed, such an approach reflects a lack of faith that waiting just beyond the last equation lies a benevolent God.

The second, and more important role of religion is in ordering people - providing laws, rules and norms that ultimately produce a better society. A belief in the literal truth of the bible is not necessary for function to be served.

Most people seem to have reacted to the decline of Christianity with reference to the unimportant first question. Ha! Damn irrational churchies - don't let the door hit you on the way out. People have not asked the critical question of whether religion or secular humanism are superior ways organizing the moral structure of a nation, even though that should be the crux of our debate, since that is what is actually going to make a difference in people's lives.

The focus on the first point is particularly bizarre given that there is so much of our lives that we do not subject to scientific reasoning. We don't question whether it is rational to love our families, to vote, or say, to volunteer at a soup kitchen. Indeed, those things probably aren't justified by some cost-benefit analysis. We do them, generally, because we have faith that they are the right thing to do - whether that faith is rooted in a belief in the existence of an approving God, or some notion of what is good. Neither can be proven, only asserted. Those that seek to rationalize such activities are no different than door-knocking Jehovah's witnesses passing around the watchtower - they are selling a set of beliefs (and a creation story).

[Tocsin]

I have no problem with defining "God" as a conceptual device: like Love.

As far as assigning an actual conscious identity to it, it makes as much sense as assigning a conscious identity to Love, such as the personas of Aphrodite, Venus, Inanna, or Astarte.

I would accept that both ideals of God and Love "exist" conceptually, which is to say - in the mind, but if their conceptual existence is regarded as proof of their conscious existence, then we would need to conlude that not only does the old gray haired guy in the clouds (who seems to look a lot like Charton Heston by several accounts) exist, but also his counterpart, the immortally beautiful Goddess of Love (in her various names), also exists.

So, is Venus (et al) an actual deity, or just a romantic idealization of the mythic love figure, and likewise is "God" an actual diety, or just the romantic idealization of the universal authority/demiurge figure?

Regarding the role of "morals" in providing a basis for social stability, the arguments seem to always center around only two possible poles on the sphere: either "morals" are burned into the consciousness by god (which would seem strange, since so many societies seem to posses different morals, even though it is assumed that they were all made by the same "creator") or they are a mechanistic/deterministic/mechanical property coded into us by our genetic encoding (which would also seem strange, since societies which posses different morals are still considered all part of the same species).

There is another possibility, though: that "morals" are not the result of divine intervention, or even just the side effect of DNA, but are a conscious (or semiconscious) construct or man, resulting from the process of "civilization."

If you look at the foundations of what most people consider "morality," what you'll find are sets of assumptions regarding how human beings are supposed to interact with each other: this is the root of civilization.

There has to be some underlying principles of human interaction to restrain and govern personal impulses that allow people to coexist and form complex, cooperative societies which benefit from the specialized skills of its individual members.

Without such agreements, or "social contracts," competing individual impulses for personal gratification would lead individuals to employ destructive force to achieve their desires and ambitions.

Our codes of conduct are used to justify the removal of individual members who violate these codes, either under the assumption that their unrestrained behavior presents such a danger to others that they need to be imprisoned, or that their inability to recognize reality or the consequences of their behavior makes them a danger to both themselves and others, and requires their institutionalization.

The basis for morality need not be built on the power of divine authority, or even on simply the power of biological mechanisms. Morality can be consciously achieved through the common application of reason to agree upon basic principles of human interaction which allow all of us to benefit from the variations of skills and abilities that individuals possess, while at the same time protecting us from the abusive behavior of those who will not restrain their pursuit of their own gratification at the expense of others, and structured so that the limitations agreed to amount to the least intrusive (as possible) into matters of personal liberties.

We have domesticated a variety of plants and animals so that they can be gainfully employed by human cultures. Why is it so hard to admit that notions of "morality" are just the projections of the "domestication" of ourselves into the more placid, cooperative, and benficial forms of human beings that are required to make the processes of civilization possible?

[dogwoodlover]

I'd take a secular society to a theocratic one any day.

[errrzarrr]

Come on! on that graphic differences are bearly appreaciable. They always get alarmed everytime there's a Democrat on WH as they are always talking of the End of the Wolrd. The always claim "this time is the real one".

It is not the first time I heard Americans are getting dumber and dumber everytime (and world's population in general), because of low standards of education, the low fund the goverment gives to science and instead of that gives it to War.

And when people is less educated you get more supersticious people and even further, those people are more extreme on their beliefs.

"The End of Christian America" is just more Alarmism of Conservatives and Scaremongers. Nothing new.

[mnmeq]

How about, I prefer a more rational justification for atrocity. :)

[Autoptic]

In the case of Santa Claus you have pretty strong evidence that he doesn't exist - namely in that the people that give you presents claiming to be him, later admit that it was them, not Santa. Moreover, Santa is hypothesized to be a real, tangible being (as are Vampires, and I suppose Oz). As such, Santa is subject to the limits of technology, or logistic problems like the fact that the North pole is under water.

Santa is limited to technological and logistic problems...with elves and flying reindeer?! Never mind that he'd be centuries old now and quite overdue for a coronary.

Very few people argue that God is a tangible or physical being, rather he is more of a concept. I tend to see God as the action of various universal laws like gravity (or the goodness of certain near-universally accepted - at least among humans - moral principles).

God as person was what was obviously being discussed here. Defined merely as a concept Santa does exist as well as anything you can name simply because you named it. You're fallaciously mixing definitions here to mislead.

If I were to base my beliefs solely on evidence, agnosticism (a belief that there might or might not be a god) would be the only logical conclusion. It is, of course, not really a conclusion, just an honest admission that I don't have evidence either way.

Do you live as if there is or is not a god? This is what defines weak atheism.


The second, and more important role of religion is in ordering people - providing laws, rules and norms that ultimately produce a better society.

Better according to the norms themselves. That's circular.

[Pouthas]

This is an interesting thread.

Of course, the US is still one of the most Christian countries in the world, and it will continue to be for quite some time. What has happened is that Christianity has become far less common among the well-educated and other elites.

Concurrently, the label "Christian" has been appropriated as an exclusive designation by people who do not believe God wants us to reconcile our existence to modernity and scientific progress, i.e., proudly ignorant bigots.

The result is a dramatic increase in the number of intelligent people who reject Christianity because they know very little about it except that they don't like the kind of people who proclaim it the loudest.

[Night Runner]

So you're implying that atheism's recent rise in popularity is just that - a pop culture phenomenon, a kneejerk reaction by the ignorant masses that are so starved for entertainment that they wouldn't mind following militant atheists who campaign against ignorant religious masses. Ironic.

[goulas]

Just to let you all know I can see your eyes rolling and heads shaking already ;) I am a critically thinking Christian!! Yeah Yeah I realize it's a bit oxymoronic but I cannot figure out how everyone who scrutinizes every bit of mainstream religion continues to use a lack of substantiation as validation that it doesn't exist. That's the entire point isn't it? You must have faith in religion and having faith means believing in the absence of proof. Without faith in God I would look like an idiot trying to give reasoning for my belief's because quite frankly there isn't any other than The Bible and the teachings of the church. If I had not been raised in the church I guarantee I would be the first one swearing up and down that only an idiot would pray to a g(G)od.
So here is my point: All of this you speak of is a good thing. I think we can all agree even with the absence of God and religion that the moral decline of society has been steady for quite sometime. (Let's just stick to criminal behavior since the law gives us that in writing.) Hell, today Perez Hilton single handedly destroyed any moral fabric the Miss USA Pageant had with his gay marriage question that decided who won. NOT because of the question itself, although I personally could have done without it, but because he publicly stated on Larry King later that (paraphrase) Miss USA should be sensitive to issues like gay marriage and should know what the right answer to that question is even if they don't agree with it. The same pageant designed to give little girls inspiration to dream and be who they want to be and do right by themselves. Anyways, Christians tend to remain steady in their values (most) while some who oppose seem to be slowly pushing away. Further and further away they'll go until one day the difference will be so great that even people who may have thought Christianity was garbage would rather side with Jesus than the gigantic cesspool that is society a century from now. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state but even if you don't acknowledge God or religion just look at the news these days. Death death death and violence with children and mass shootings. It's disgusting and I doubt anyone feels the need to argue that.
Lastly, I am at a loss to explain how to reverse the signs in that article because quite frankly there are a lot of fellow Christians that annoy the crap out of me. I put up with them and their antics because I know we're on the same side but without that I would have to stay as far away as possible. I am Lutheran which if you didn't know started the protestant separation from Catholicism and we're quite conservative. We don't raise our voice in church or deviate from the same ole same ole and we definitely don't jump and scream and go door to door. I think the approach needs to change ( eyes rolling---I see you!!) in order to reach people for sure. Outright telling people they're going to burn in hell if they don't join you doesn't strike me as productive in any way. Is this type of behavior what you all associate with your dislike for Christians, if any, or is it just your preference for their absence from politics?

[Pandemonium]

... So here is my point: I think we can all agree even with the absence of God and religion that the moral decline of society has been steady for quite sometime. (Let's just stick to criminal behavior since the law gives us that in writing.) ...


... Is this type of behavior what you all associate with your dislike for Christians, if any, or is it just your preference for their absence from politics?


I don't agree with that there is a steady moral decline in society. Morals, beliefs, purpose, meaning and identity are created by culture not religion. In all regards if there is a steady moral decline it would not be caused from an absence of god or religion. The majority of criminal actions or the manifestation of criminal behavior is due to scarcity within the monetary system. Stress from scarcity causes a variety of displacement behaviors such as violent crime. In reference to the fay marriage question in the pageant, it only becomes a question of moralities when someone (a.k.a. media and or organised groups) addresses it on a level a moralities. I personally find nothing wrong with gay marriage because it is not a question of morals.

Moral foundations are an emergent property, nothing more. Your deluded if you stated that you ascertained your morals from god. That would be only true if you have never came into contact with any stimulus for your existance.....but even then we have genetic foundations of morals. If ascertained your morals from religion, you in fact derived them from the culture of the religious group. A Jewish kid and a Nazi kid would get along just fine if their parents didn't introduce the concept of segregation and enemy.

Religion and Politics should aways be kept separate. The very idea the religion being involved in politics is against my morals..................





Pandemonium added to this post, 1 minutes and 42 seconds later...

Ohh! If Christian America ever ended, if ever, my reaction would be one of apathy because the culture of the group would not have change.

[Tocsin]

I think we can all agree even with the absence of God and religion that the moral decline of society has been steady for quite sometime.

First off, who would agree that there has been an absence of God and religion?

The influence of religion in America has been growing from the late sixties up through the Bush administration. It had become so prevelant by 2000 that it allowed him to "claim" the White House - twice (well, that and vote fraud). The growth of influence of Christian groups in the U.S. made it impossible for any politician to seriously protest government payola to religious groups in the form of "faith based funding." Even Obama has had to suck up to religious groups and promise to keep the cash spigot flowing.

Secondly, the influence of "God and religion" has been declining in Europe for decades, and yet there had been no corresponding decline in morality. There has been a huge uptick in religiously inspired violence and demands for social repression, but that has been due to the immigration of islamic fundamentalism in Europe - people whose beliefs in God and religion are paramount.

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state but even if you don't acknowledge God or religion just look at the news these days. Death death death and violence with children and mass shootings. It's disgusting and I doubt anyone feels the need to argue that.

And yet... America remains the most "religious" developed industrial nation on the planet. Your observation almost supports the inverse of your argument.

I am at a loss to explain how to reverse the signs in that article because quite frankly there are a lot of fellow Christians that annoy the crap out of me. I put up with them and their antics because I know we're on the same side but without that I would have to stay as far away as possible.

Perhaps they annoy you because there is a level of arrogance that comes with the certitudes of knowing "who god is" and "what god wants" that are hallmarks of many people driven by faith. It is a characteristic of intelorance to feel that if someone doesn't agree with you (not "you" personally but any devout third peron), that they must be against god as well, since you have faith that you know what god wants - and "they" seem to be against it.

[goulas]

First off, who would agree that there has been an absence of God and religion?

Most likely no one. That's not what I said. I said "even with" the absence of God and religion in the following statement, " I think we can all agree--steady decline--blah blah" and then placed it in the context of criminal behavior given that's the only "moral" written in the law books so there would be no need for a sidebar on what constitutes moral.


And yet... America remains the most "religious" developed industrial nation on the planet. Your observation almost supports the inverse of your argument..
Hmmmm....you may have a point there.


Perhaps they annoy you because there is a level of arrogance that comes with the certitudes of knowing "who god is" and "what god wants" that are hallmarks of many people driven by faith. It is a characteristic of intelorance to feel that if someone doesn't agree with you (not "you" personally but any devout third peron), that they must be against god as well, since you have faith that you know what god wants - and "they" seem to be against it.
That is true....I make it a point to never come off like that. At least I don't think I do.


goulas added to this post, 17 minutes and 9 seconds later...

I personally find nothing wrong with gay marriage because it is not a question of morals.. It is a question of morals, just maybe not your morals. Morals are our values used in determining what we deem right and wrong. If one group is saying it's wrong based on xyz then morals are involved. The problem is that no one can agree on a universal set of them. Although it does seem that slowly the law is having to make that determination for us on a case by case basis..

Your deluded if you stated that you ascertained your morals from god. . How so? If we all got them simply by exsisting in a society then we would all have the same ones, wouldn't we? The only reason some of my morals may differ is due to my religious beliefs so I think it is very fair to say that a portion of my morals come from (my) God.

[Night Runner]

Perhaps they annoy you because there is a level of arrogance that comes with the certitudes of knowing "who god is" and "what god wants" that are hallmarks of many people driven by faith. It is a characteristic of intelorance to feel that if someone doesn't agree with you (not "you" personally but any devout third peron), that they must be against god as well, since you have faith that you know what god wants - and "they" seem to be against it.
That is true....I make it a point to never come off like that. At least I don't think I do.

If only it were so simple. The problem is a lot bigger. Non-Christians - and particularly atheists - are discriminated against in many parts of this country. It's not unheard of for an atheist to get fired when others find out of his/her belief (or rather lack thereof). In some of the more extreme cases, people lose their families... Furthermore, due to the unholy alliance of politics and organized religion, it's all but impossible for someone to get elected if they don't pretend to be Christian and/or attend a number of religious services. Last time I checked, there were no atheists in the Senate and only one (1!) in the House of Representatives (of course, he was from California).

The Christian America isn't going to end anytime soon - and when it does, I and many others will be much better off.

[Tocsin]

If we all got them (morals) simply by exsisting in a society then we would all have the same ones, wouldn't we?

Both morals and conceptions of god are cultural inventions. The reason everyone in the the United States does not share the same concepts of god and morals is because the U.S. is a multicultural nation. People are not required to become a "Judeo-Christian" to become an American citizens... at least, not yet.

The only reason some of my morals may differ is due to my religious beliefs so I think it is very fair to say that a portion of my morals come from (my) God.

It would be more accurate to say that both your god and your morals come from your culture.

The part that gets confusing for so many people is that they think "god is with us," which is to say, that their culture is god's culture, and everyone from other culture's (with their own conecpts of god and moralitry) who thinks the same thing about their own culture has got it wrong.

[TheWanderer]

As a Christian, i view this as a mixed blessing.
I'm glad the number of fundies, Mormons, Jehovah witnesses, Bush Christians, people who think killing others in the name of god is religious, Christians who feel no obligation towards the poor and televangelists are going down. These groups converting into atheists would be an improvement for everyone, and leave the Christian religion in better shape than it was before.
Seriously groups like that really ruin things for the rest of us, and their such attention wh****. The media never focuses on the christians who actually try and live by the gospels, its alwyas the nutty or immoral ones that give the spotlight to.
I hope this leads to the churchs, particularly Catholicism becoming less dogmatic, and actually adapting to the modern world.
People are running away, because of the churches controlling behavior in the past and how many priests are out of touch with the real world. I think th fact all the high ranking Catholics are old people isolated from everyone else is a seriously bad thing.
Religion is poison if its used to try and stop people thinking, although I don't like the dog eat dogness of Darwinism (if you look at modern america, it really matches Survival of the Fittest more than anything described in the bible. Christian on the hollow outside, ruthless atheism (no I know their not all like that) on the inside).

[Pouthas]

I'm asking this because I think it is relevant to the social and cultural phenomena discussed here, not to move the discussion toward theology:

How many posters have read the entire Bible, or most of it?

[Night Runner]

The media never focuses on the christians who actually try and live by the gospels, its alwyas the nutty or immoral ones that give the spotlight to.
That's because people would much rather watch something radical and sensational than a story about an "ordinary" person. Your comment on "ruthless atheism" is a good example of the way media affecting people.

I'm asking this because I think it is relevant to the social and cultural phenomena discussed here, not to move the discussion toward theology:

How many posters have read the entire Bible, or most of it?

Good question. I've read a good chunk of the new testament for my college classes, but I would never pick up the Bible otherwise. A big part of my aversion to it (and Christianity in general) is caused by the fact that my very first memory is that of being water-boarded during the Greek-Orthodox baptism ceremony. Doing that to children is not only a kind of accepted torture, but it also tends to turn them into atheists when they grow up.

[Pandemonium]

It is a question of morals, just maybe not your morals. Morals are our values used in determining what we deem right and wrong. If one group is saying it's wrong based on xyz then morals are involved. The problem is that no one can agree on a universal set of them. Although it does seem that slowly the law is having to make that determination for us on a case by case basis..

How so? If we all got them simply by exsisting in a society then we would all have the same ones, wouldn't we? The only reason some of my morals may differ is due to my religious beliefs so I think it is very fair to say that a portion of my morals come from (my) God.

All morals, beliefs, purposes etc. are created by the culture which is your environment. You maybe believe god gives you your morals but thats akin to me believing my engineering text books give me my moral foundations.

God may exist or not....who knows??.....but he does not give you your morals. If you got your morals from the bible that is you adopting them from a book due to the perhaps logic that is behind the morals. If you adopted them just because you believe that they are the words a god.....errrm.....your deluded.

Read Maslow's Works.

[thod]

And yet the LDS is not short of members, they have an entire state and most of a neighbouring one. Not bad for a cult that only started recently. What's more, they are continuing to grow. The same is true of other fundamentalist groups such as the Amish. They are winning, secular society is losing. No matter how much the secularist think they are winning, facts are against them. Just as the Atheists think that everyone will eventually come to see their point of view, the religious see a new world coming in their image. They religious will out breed the atheists and their adherence to traditional practices will lower their mortality rates.

The problem the Atheists face is lack of anything to cling to. Their value system is that "Anything is OK, provided it doesn't hurt others". This does not provide guidance is what should be done, only what shouldn't. Many Atheists have no moral code at all. They are adrift, unable to agree what is worth fighting for and unable to group to do so.

What frightens the Atheists is the righteousness of the religious. The religious do not say, its OK, it it doesn't hurt others. Their code says what is right and what is wrong. Those that defy the natural order, Gods order, are sinners and it is just that they be punished. Action is anathema to the Atheists, they blog on internet fora but are ineffectual in the real world.

The religious man that knows what it right and what is wrong and is prepared to die for it scares them. They are not prepared to die for anything because they have no strong beliefs. When such people group up, a small number of them can exert power over many apathetics, just look at the Taliban. So the Atheists need to rethink their rule, it IS OK to exert your will onto others, it IS OK to force them to live in a moral way. It is OK to kill your enemies. Their way of thinking makes them pussies for those who are prepared to do what is right. In war the consequence of recklessness is death, that of cowardice is capture, and the Atheists shall be captured. They simply have nothing to fight for.

Just because you believe that everyone has the right to do as they will, does not mean others do. The Christians are quite within their rights to shun groups they don't like. To not serve them in shops, to refuse to take their money, or to get out of their way in the street. They may go further and smash their windows to get them to leave town. They are not wanted in their community, they have moved in to take advantage of its stability without wanting to be part of it. "Its our town, not yours, you live here by our consent alone".

[Undead Bonzi]

The religious man that knows what it right and what is wrong and is prepared to die for it scares them. They are not prepared to die for anything because they have no strong beliefs. When such people group up, a small number of them can exert power over many apathetics, just look at the Taliban. So the Atheists need to rethink their rule, it IS OK to exert your will onto others, it IS OK to force them to live in a moral way. It is OK to kill your enemies. Their way of thinking makes them pussies for those who are prepared to do what is right. In war the consequence of recklessness is death, that of cowardice is capture, and the Atheists shall be captured. They simply have nothing to fight for.

Just because you believe that everyone has the right to do as they will, does not mean others do. The Christians are quite within their rights to shun groups they don't like. To not serve them in shops, to refuse to take their money, or to get out of their way in the street. They may go further and smash their windows to get them to leave town. They are not wanted in their community, they have moved in to take advantage of its stability without wanting to be part of it. "Its our town, not yours, you live here by our consent alone".

I can't disagree with what you say, but I would like to ask what happens when you wake up one day and look in the mirror and see your enemy looking back at you? You have essentially said that atheists need to give up the one moral they do hold strongly to so that they may win...but if they do that are they any different than those they would be opposing?

[Tsukasa]

I'm not sure if this is the article or not, but an article like this came out and was wrong. They used skewed data; don't believe everything you read. Anyone can plaster something on the cover of a magazine and call it journalism.

[Tocsin]

...Christians are quite within their rights to shun groups they don't like. To not serve them in shops, to refuse to take their money, or to get out of their way in the street. They may go further and smash their windows to get them to leave town. They are not wanted in their community, they have moved in to take advantage of its stability without wanting to be part of it. "Its our town, not yours, you live here by our consent alone".

Gimme that ol' time religion...

Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew. In a coordinated attack on Jewish people and their property, 91 Jews were murdered and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and deported to concentration camps. More than 200 synagogues were destroyed and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked. Kristallnacht also served as a pretext and a means for the wholesale confiscation of firearms from German Jews.

While the assassination of Rath served as a pretext for the attacks, Kristallnacht was part of a broader Nazi policy of antisemitism and persecution of the Jews. Kristallnacht was followed by further economic and political persecutions and is viewed by many historians as the beginning of the Final Solution, leading towards the genocide of the Holocaust.

Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

"Religious values" are fairly consistent... as are the results...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tristan]

I'd take a secular society to a theocratic one any day.

I used to think so, too, but I realized that they just make gods of their rulers.

[Pandemonium]

The problem the Atheists face is lack of anything to cling to. Their value system is that "Anything is OK, provided it doesn't hurt others". This does not provide guidance is what should be done, only what shouldn't. Many Atheists have no moral code at all. They are adrift, unable to agree what is worth fighting for and unable to group to do so.



o_O

I don't know who has been telling you this crap......If you thought of it yourself, I don't know who you have been observing to draw conclusions from. I am going to self proclaim my atheism. I Guarantee you that I most likely have a greater altruism streak than any self-righteous religious folk. My moral code and basic guidances have been determined by the environment which I have grown up in. My parents are not religious either. However, they did allow me to go to church for a while to make my own decision (eight years old at the time). I have read proverbs, only to realise that I have beat the book to alluding me the ideas and concepts. What ever Jesus taught was just common sense. Even Buddha's teachings were nothing new to me. If you have ever studied Buddhism, you will notice that they both spout the same ethos. I uphold the Scientific Method to formulate decisions (even this was not new, I have already determined it before I heard anyone else's name for it). The community in which I live and my environment determine my moral code.

If you put two kids together who have had no religious teachings or even no moral teachings, they will get along just fine and play with each other. It is only when the parents of the Jewish Child and the parents of the Muslim Child say to them "They are bad because their evil" which causes moral dilemmas. Children are most susceptible to this kind of bullshit because they believe that their parents are akin to god.

Some people have no moral codes due to one reason or another and all reasons to do with the environment which they have learnt their morals. These people may call themselves atheists or may call themselves theists. Having no moral codes is a symptom of being an sociopath.

I have seen religious people that believe in a god or gods being taught to segregate, taught to hate and taught to believe anything that is against their views is evil. Religion plays on people's irrationals. Freud dubbed this irrational the 'ego'. I have seen atheists being taught to segregate, to hate, to believe anything that is against their views to be evil, appealing to their irrational. It is all a product of environment.

I am an atheist and I have my own moral code to cling to. Do I need a superficial or deluded belief in something to determine them, when really it is a product of my environment? The answer is no because I am not an idiot. I define myself by achieving a calm inner centre and not leading a path of bigotry and xenophobia. <------- Something that my environment did not nor anything else taught me. I am sure if the religious belts in America would irrupt in anarchy if dire scarcity was applied. I assure, no one would look back to their teachings if they are starving to death. They may dwell in hopelessness and despair about it all. Only the pigs will preach.

Here in Australia we do not have a problems with rampant irrationals of the populous due to their backwards, counter-productive beliefs. Apart from the xenophobia being drilled into us by an counter-productive media industry. Patriotism is becoming a problem. We don't have a problem of a large proportion of the population of religious zealots.

Humans are not naturally bad or evil and we do not have something frivolous as original sin. We are a product of a our environment. There is no escaping it, no denying it. If you were born in anywhere else in the world you would have a different religion. You are not special. You are not the enlightened ones.

[thod]

In regard to the Barbary wars, where US ships were being attacked:

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Not all men hold that others are equal, those that do will be the slaves of those that do not.

[Pandemonium]

In regard to the Barbary wars, where US ships were being attacked:

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

A perversion of the Koran due to culture. When I read the Koran it did not allude to me that those who did not acknowledge the prophet were to be killed. It probably did outline they were sinners for not doing so. Christianity says the same things about those who do not identify Jesus is the son of god. Neither state sinners should be killed in the name of god. Both state the innocent (even ones who do not believe) should not be harmed. Both state that sinning in the name of god is not allowed.





Pandemonium added to this post, 3 minutes and 16 seconds later...

My next door neighbours are practicing Muslims and they bare no inkling that they want to start a holy war. They are quite outraged that the nutters are perverting the image of their religion.





Pandemonium added to this post, 190 minutes and 41 seconds later...

By the way, there is nothing wrong with a belief system you have deduced yourself. Since you have used individual thought.

[Rudy]

A perversion of the Koran due to culture. When I read the Koran it did not allude to me that those who did not acknowledge the prophet were to be killed. It probably did outline they were sinners for not doing so. Christianity says the same things about those who do not identify Jesus is the son of god. Neither state sinners should be killed in the name of god. Both state the innocent (even ones who do not believe) should not be harmed. Both state that sinning in the name of god is not allowed.
Maybe, maybe not.

However, even if you're correct (I have not red the Koran, so I'm unsure,) it's clear that either book makes it easy to pervert the text to evil ends; this is a problem.

[Calagnethil]

Very interesting article. Nothing new though. Secularization seriously hit Europe in the 1890s. America have tended to be like 40 years "behind". Certainly it needs to leave some mark in the US, that the hippie-generation now has become the establishment. However, religion seems to be doing fine. At least the religious consciousness in the general populace in the US seems to be increasing. You have a way to go before you reach European tendencies.

It is a general tendency in global Christianity that the south and north are changing places. South will emerge as the new center of Christianity, given the prognoses, in a few decades. Even in eastern Asia things are moving rapidly, though hard to notice for most people. Christianity is by no means dead. Rather, it is the future.

[nacht]

Maybe, maybe not.

However, even if you're correct (I have not red the Koran, so I'm unsure,) it's clear that either book makes it easy to pervert the text to evil ends; this is a problem.

You can pervert just about anything to evil ends. That's not really relevant when discussing how useful something is or isn't.

Knives get used every day to make your food, they also get used in crimes every day. That you can pervert a text's message isn't a "problem" any more than that you can stab someone with any good chef's knife.

The problem is dogmatism, fundamentalism, literal interpretations, and manipulation by people in power: not the Koran itself or what it can, theoretically, be twisted to say.