Increasing Number of Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

"the number of a group as indicative of cultural change is not nearly so important as the percentage of a total" - perfectly correct

" we know religious ones have far more children than do skeptics" -

A. skeptic and religious are not opposites. There are non-skeptical atheists, as much of PPR - not all - attests, and with the prevailing regime in education and the other media the proportion of atheist nonskeptics is rapidly rising. And there are seriously skeptical theists, yrs trly being one.

B the fact that SOME theists have problems with certain forms of population control does not mean theist implies breeder and atheist implies zero population growth. In the US yes, you can likely find a correlation of family size plotted against atheist academics versus Catholic agriculturalists. Big deal.

C. rarely if ever reject their childhood indoctrination - pooh. If religion were as simple as childhood indoctrination it would be long dead. Most childhood indoctrination in this kindergarten - Saturday cartoon - USA today Oprah culture is strongly atheist, and I'm afraid indoctrination into atheism is not necessarily permanent.

it sure does have a lot to say, sure it is in no way the only factor but it does shape the mind of children growing up in heavly saturated enviroments,
the danish church put this as the top reason for falling membership (despite it in theory being a state religion)

There are a lot of problems with state religion, though, and it's one of the worst experiments in all of Christian history.

When "everyone's doing it" like in a state religion, more people take it for granted. Are you a Christian? Yes I am. I wouldn't be a very patriotic [nation]man if I weren't would I? That's the line of thinking. Christianity was never meant to be a source of cultural identity.

Am I from the American South? Yes. Am I a Southern Baptist? Yes. Being from where I am from certainly had a lot to do with it. But I've also taken the time to read and study the Bible, to examine other denominations, go to a few different churches, and really consider whether my upbringing was right on in terms of theology. Many things I've accepted, a few things I've rejected, and I could conceivably go to other churches like AoG and SOME non-denominational churches. I don't even REALLY object to Catholicism. I don't believe that it's the "Great Devil." Now, sure, I take issue with a heavy reliance on works over faith theology, but I don't think they're the apostate church some make them out to be. I think to truly accept any religion, you really ought to understand what it's about and consider whether you really believe in it. It shouldn't be because "mommy and daddy made me go to church every time the door was open." Sure, your parents have the right to do that. But you reach a point when you have to make that decision on your own.

When I discipline my children, they're small and chances are they're going to cry and wail over time-outs and, if it comes to that, spankings. But I do explain to them, young as they are, that the point is not "do as you're told or else," but rather "learn to make good decisions for the sake of being a good person." My little girl is going through a phase when she likes to shred all manner of paper products, many times things that belong to her mother and I, and we've often explained that this is inappropriate. She's not really sorry about it, even if she says she's sorry. She has to learn what it feels like to be REALLY sorry, and we have to MAKE her sorry. But just as it happened with her brother, she'll eventually pick up on this and start having consideration for other people and their things. The focus being on WHY we do/don't do certain things.

I think it's important that children follow their parents' religion with the parents understanding that the child himself or herself ultimately has to decide if that's really what he or she wants. Real Christianity is not a social obligation. It's not an intergenerational tradition for the sake of cultural identification. It's not "because mommy said so." It's a true relationship with God. If parents or even the state, professing Christianity as its own, fail in reaching an understanding with children and the people of what it really means to be a Christian, then they have completely missed the point and they are losing souls. I don't think Christianity was ever intended to be or is ever effective as a single theocratic institution or method of control. Once it becomes tradition for tradition's sake, it is a spiritual danger to the lives of those under its governance.

Atheism is only alowed on screen in the American media when bill maher is speaking. Thats it.

When Bill Maher is not performing niether the media nor the public school system will touch atheism with a ten foot pole. So why are you bellyaching about non existant "indoctrination" into atheism by the media and the school system?

The media doesnt do much to promote religion either , but it doesnt dare promote atheism.

Are you tyring to prove that you're delusional, or what?

And why do you demonize Oprah?

"Are you tyring to prove that you're delusional, or what?" I would not know how to start. It seems rather stupid, doesn't it? Someone who is delusional aware that he is delusional and anxious to prove it? That would not be delusional - that would be insane. I have been insane, though no one else wass aware of it. But I am not delusional unless the world really does not exist.

Education and the media, you say, do not promote atheism?

So, if I pick up the local paper, or fire up the TV, I will find approximately equivalent volume and tone of verbiage on positive and negative aspects of religious organizations and secular organizations. So if I go to school I will be given reliable and objective insights into various belief systems, making it clear that divine entities are given credence by intelligent, educated, civilized people. If I talk about God in the faculty lounge I will not be ostracised, and if I choose to write a paper on the role of religion in aboriginal - colonist relations in the Mid-Atlantic colonies that will not be a problem.

No, they do not stand up and say "BE ATHEIST". But before you call me delusional, you might pause to remember I spent all my life in education. I do not know the media as well, but I am not deaf and blind.

In education and the media - except for institutions that are explicitly religion linked, which too often have equalbut opposite problems - the theistically inclined [other than the occasional Buddhist monk or other ethnic] are marginalized, muzzled, and labelled uncool.

It is true enough that the Socialized and the Socializers are among the biggest groups in most societies, and that the Socializers will imprint like ducklings on the most available ideological structure. The Socialized will in turn follow the lead of the most confident Socializers.

But it is not necessarily permanent. A Socializer I know well started out imprinted on Catholicism - even would up in the seminary. THEN he changed venue and converted to match his surroundings - full-fledge atheist hippie. Down the road he moved and attached to a new formulation - heavy duty legalistic Evangelical.. Subsequent moves were less drastic - # 4 was Evangelical with a light touch, #5 - the most recent, over to Anglican.

Wee Coryl, one of the Soicialized whose history I know well, showed even more fluctuation to fit changing circumstances. Never either fully atheist nor clearly theist - a nonstop seeker.

-----------

The established church concept is another topic.

Nevermind the title. The OP is talking about percentage.

I think that people in general are not as afraid to post their real beliefs on line as they would be in real life.

I mean, if I were to speak in church about how I feel about church and religion in general, then those church people might treat me with even more veiled indifference (or open hostility) than they do now. So I go to church, smile, sit, stand, sit, kneel, stand, hug, stand, sit, stand and leave. Then I log on to WP and say something really snarky about the whole experience; something like...

I think the percent of atheists is still amazingly low. Like in America, I think only a few percent, maybe ten percent at most, would describe themselves as "atheists", though probably 30% of the population at large and about half of Gen Y would say they are non-religious.

Keep in mind that the percentage of people saying they are "spiritual but not religious" is growing faster than agnostic and atheism combined. The growing number of people who do not believe in God or Gods have a different way of looking at the world than religious people.

Atheism is a great way of saving time, effort, and energy concentrating on the reality in front of us rather than wondering if there is a God or not. Our modern society has benefited from people who are not strictly religious. People who were willing to explore the world and its inner workings were rewarded with knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Instead of relying on a prophet to tell us what is to happen in the future, a person can use knowledge to find out on their own.

Religion is no more valid in shedding light on how the world works than the superstitions of our early ancestors. When it comes to the real world, the thing we are confronted with everyday, it does not work.

The old stigmas and dangers attached to openly oppossing the religous establishment, have been greatly reduced. A history of intolerance, oppression, genocide, racism, torture, warmongering and suppression of knowlege; left a very lasting impression on the people of the world. Organized 'revealed' religion can no longer fully stifle people from pursuing their own answers and forming their own opinions.

Many choose to oppose everything that religion stands for because of its inherent failures and hypocracies. If religion says there is a God it must be another lie meant to control the masses; could be the logic of some athiests.

It may also be the inherently imbalanced nature of the world. Innocence is punished while corruption is rewarded. Those who have the most are expected to sacrifice the least while those who have the least must give up what little they have; and as a result the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. To some there appears to be a profound absence of rhyme or reason; and naturally many question how any sort of benevolent creator could allow such disparity and inhumanity to continue.

The truth is religion has failed many who now call themselves athiests. As a result the prevailing culture is changing to suit the views of a quickly growing demographic. Religion has in essence killed God.

Namazu, I agree with everything except this:

I would say that religion has nearly obliterated to popularity of God, especially among those who are both intelligent enough to determine the truth, and free enough to use their own faculties to do so.

Besides, a Theist is likely to say that "God can not be killed", while an Atheist might say, "You can't kill something that never lived".

Other than that, we're on the same page.

Welcome to the team!

The population of Believers is increasing at a greater rate than the population of atheists. So you are quite right.

If some variety of "natural religion" such as Deism caught on, it would not be a bad thing for the human race. If a variety of Buddhism caught on, it probably would not be a bad thing either. Religions that emphasize self control could actually be beneficial provided they were practiced and observed quietly and privately. While I might not participate in such religions, I also would not live in fear and anxiety surrounded by such religions either.

ruveyn

Umm...a couple of facts:

1) There is really no such thing as God. Sorry, but there isn't. I won't judge or condemn you for believing there is such a thing because I think that it's more important to promote the values of humanism than to oppose religion (after all, Winston Churchill was a great humanist but a loyal Anglican to the end), but I am afraid that God does not pass muster as far as actually existing whatsoever.

2) There was a time when the Church could maintain the predominance of religion by virtue of force and social pressure. This was a brutal and vicious system, and I don't think that you would be keen on returning to it. If the survival of religion and spirituality are important to you, though, I think it would comfort you to know that there are presently less atrocious means being employed to this end, and they seem to be working pretty well.


There is no reason for the US to go to war with China. China is a civilized power, and they are only a threat to the USA in terms of threatening our cultural hegemony. Although I am not especially keen on American values giving way to their crummy collectivist conservative value system, I don't see war as a viable answer to this.

In answer to the question, opposition to religion has never been a key point in China's government. It is really quite irrelevant. They are fearful of religious organizations and their ability to challenge the authority of government, but the Chinese have never attempted to discourage people from observing whatever weirdo religion they want to. The Falun Gong are not an exception: the Falun Gong idiots were disemboweling themselves to see the gear that was supposedly responsible for their existence according to their whacked-out drugged-up system of belief, and I agree with the PRC's reaction to them.

Worldwide:

Belief in some kind of Deity 90% (and/or religious philosophy)
Atheist population 10%

The numbers never skew more than +/- 2%

Think of it as a bell curve and you'll understand the mathematics behind it.
More of the 10% of atheists are outspoken now than ever, but:

Math doesn't lie.