Discussion: which religion most likely to produce Atheists?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, dunno if that counts, but i have read that a few religions from Asia pretty much give you a lot of leeway in your religious practice, mostly buddhism or shinto (and yes i'm biaised, i'm doing a paper on Shintoism >< ). Speaking of which it's rather complicated to analyse their rituals based on our standards of religion, since everyone can be shintoist (yup, even americans, if they oh-so-want to) so the communitas aspect is hard to spot. Unless maybe you could talk about going from "impure" to "pure", i doubt the concept of liminality applies to their rituals. =.= Anyways, i'm kind of at a loss but i gave a shot at your question. Oh yeah, i also read that their priests can work as salarymen in companies as well.

I would say science, but calling science a religion is a whole other debate.

The runner up for me would be Wicca. I only have a few experiences with Wiccans, but those experiences are enough to make me list them. As I understand it, Wiccans do their religious ceremonies in the nude. Every single time I have met Wiccans the head priest or whatever they call him is invariably a fat upper middle aged man, and most of the followers are attractive young women. I found it very hard at times not to make a disparaging comment. I figure that when those ladies catch on they might be disgusted and turn to the atheism route.

On this point i would say not necessarily.

The truth is the truth, period. Whether or not whatever the truth is would or wouldn't suggest a low level of deconversion the truth remains the truth.

Admittedly I have not read through the posts, but the obvious answer to your questio n Fuzzy, is a religion that encourages rational thought. So probably the answer is none.


BTW I am surprised that you biblical literalists gave not yet posted regarding Noahs Ark, is the story too far fetched even for you, or is this obviously a fake cos the real one has already been found.

I'm not sure what Noah's Ark has to do with anything in regards to this discussion.

Here's my thing about the Ark. There are those (understandably so) who write off the Bible as a collection of fairy tales. So be it. But the thing I like about those "fairy tales" is the emphasis on miraculous events that defy any logical or scientific explanation. Supposedly a case for a short-term, large-scale, regional incident has been made, but it's hardly likely even if all the polar ice caps melted, global tectonic activity released all underground water, AND an asteroid slammed into the ocean that an isolated incident such as Noah's flood could have happened precisely the way it was described.

Try as some may, I have serious doubts as to how one could possibly find a working scientific explanation for what happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, either. If it did happen that way, it had to be by design, otherwise how would Noah have even known what was about to happen and what to do about it?

The other thing that is interesting to me about the flood is most world cultures have SOME mythology concerning the destruction of the world by global flood. It would be different if there was a disparity among many cultures as to what exactly kind of catastrophe was the cause, but even Native Americans seem to have a flood story. The way I see it, this only makes sense if you consider a very select few common ancestors pre-flood, perhaps Noah with his grandchildren.

For me, the only logical conclusion would have to be divine intervention. Whether this came by design or direct supernatural involvement is irrelevant. But I do see it all as, quite simply, miracle.

Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what that story has to do with anything. It's only far-fetched for those of us who lack an open mind and very much imagination. However, creative effort and imagination are somewhat special areas of interest for me which makes such ideas very easy to believe. Yet the lovely thing about believing in miracles, including the flood, is they defy some of the recondite over-intellectualizations that certain philosophers, scientists, and even theologians place on the workings of the natural and/or spiritual world. Even the simplest mind can understand it, and perhaps children are better at understanding it than educated adults!

Suddenly a line from the film Ladyhawke comes to mind: "I believe in miracles, Marquet. It's part of my job."

AngelRho, if you're interested, I've always found this site to be interesting regarding Noah's Ark: http://www.worldwideflood.com/

Perhaps specifically this article may be of interest, http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/miracles/miracles.htm

Not really wanting to hijack a thread, I was just casting a snide comment on the gullibility of fundamental believers, but are you seriously suggesting the biblical flood happened, and that flood deposited a boat 14,500 feet up a mountain. There is NO credible evidence of such a flood, unless of course this present claim turns out not to be a hoax. To determine that heresay and legend or the imagination of a child should replace scientific evidence (or as in the case of the flood, complete lack of it) is rather sad.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm not one to argue evidence with, though, because I think there are better reasons to say that God exists and miracles happen than in evidence of a purely naturalistic origin. A problem we Christians often run into is trying to "prove" things that by their very nature cannot be proven that way. But if you want to make a case for gullibility, don't ignore the tendency of science to make others gullible in their own right. Scientific study presupposes logic, as one example, when there is no scientific basis for logic to exist. Science can by the same argument be equally relegated to the stuff of fairy tales, so do be careful in your appraisal of one belief or another as being silly or "sad." Therefore, because something cannot be "proven" according to human observation and understanding (science), there must be some other explanation. From this view, it only makes sense that some supernatural being had something to do with it.

There is also near-universal agreement that SOMETHING happened. The scientific evidence that we do seem to have on the dinosaurs seems to show that whatever happened, it happened quickly. The Biblical writer (we assume Moses) explains this through the flood account--not the extinction of dinosaurs specifically, just sudden global catastrophe. From that angle--that is, a single event with worldwide effects--the Biblical flood isn't that far-fetched.

I've heard of the boat you're talking about, and to be honest, I don't know that much about what's going on with it. What little I've heard about it seems to suggest at least the possibility that a Biblical story is confirmed--why else would a boat end up on a mountain? But who really KNOWS, anyway? That's what I can't figure out. I know mummies in Egypt were well-preserved throughout the millennia from preservative methods in combination with geographic weather conditions, something you don't find in Canaan (Israel). I don't see how the wood construction of any boat, even if the outer parts are covered in tar for waterproofing, would stand up to such a great length of time in an environment not suitable for preservation of organic material. For all we really know it could be the remnant of an ancient king's palace or some kind of shrine. Even the Bible shows that various peoples built "high places" of worship.

I don't mean to sound like I'm suggesting a miracle happened and immediately start disproving any evidence that it happened. Something that I'm especially concerned about is when any kind of evidence is found, people tend to crowd onto the "boat" and then get really disappointed when it sinks!

The thing is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence is meaningless, the flood story is just that, with NO supporting evidence it is just a story. Such a flood would leave major geological evidence behind and there is none, so I find it quite bizarre that you are able to talk about the flood as an historical fact. As for the scientific method being out there to fool the gullible, that is exactly what it is designed to prevent, the whole purpose of the paradigm is to ensure the utmost honesty in results. Yes science can get it wrong but the method is designed to be able to correct falsehoods. It is only when people ignore the scientific method, ignore overwhelming evidence or in this case the lack of it, that things go pear shaped.

oh Gee, Ladyhawke -has flashbacks-

Also, if you want, you could always use the Durkheimian definition of religion. =/

According to him, it needs....

-rituals
-beliefs
-distinction between profane and sacred
-a moral community.

Have fun. <.<

Personally, if I had children, I'd prefer to educate them about the spectrum of religious belief from strong theism to strong atheism, the various religious traditions of the world, and the histories behind those religions. This would be within a context of philosophical inquiry with an admittedly humanistic bent. Ultimately, I'd want my children to make their own decision when they're old enough, but I wouldn't want to just force such essential beliefs on them when they're too young to understand.

Sure. That way, they'll have their feet planted firmly in midair.

The idea actually is to provide them the framework to understand religious ideas historically and critically so that their are not swayed by facile arguments, guilt trips, and the like. I would want them to have the intellectual tools to empathize with another's point of view even if they do not share it. This is so that they can understand the impact such beliefs may have on its believers, them, and the wider society.

Unitarian Universalism is a candidate, although it's a vary unconventional religion - heterodoxical to the point where one can be an atheist and still be a devout Unitarian Universalist.

This is true. I find them interestingly ironic. They claim to be "seekers," but oddly enough they never seem to find anything.

I actually did have a lovely long term relationship with a beautiful U/U girl once (contrary to popular belief, they DO exist). I even attended a church service at her home church. It's hard to imagine they once had Christian roots when the pastor spewed anti-Christian hate messages from the pulpit.

Actually, the answer would probably be "whichever religion predominates in liberal/permissive cultures where people do not face severe repercussions for abandoning their faith." Thus, it would be Christianity. Probably a majority of atheists today were raised Christian, and a fairly large number of nominal Christians are, in practice, atheist. Certainly relatively few Muslims renounce their faith (though the number is much higher than people realize, it still is not on par with the mass apostasy that occurs when Westerners go to university). Judaism is also a candidate simply because it has been so thoroughly secularized. Between a fifth and a quarter of the students at my university are ethnic Jews, but I only know one or two who actually practice the religion.

My understanding of the UU (a Church I am highly sympathetic to) is that they seek moral clarity and meaning in life - rather open ended questions - and do so in an environment of (vaguely) like-tempered individuals. They also provide the social capital benefits of traditional churches without the dogmatic requirements.

And, yes, I'd expect a large Church would have beautiful woman members. It's a statistical near impossibility that a Church of its size wouldn't.