America becoming less Christian, survey finds

Quote :

"America is a less Christian nation than it was 20 years ago, and Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether, a survey published Monday found ... William Donohue, president of the Catholic League said he thinks a radical shift towards individualism over the last quarter-century has a lot to do it. ... The rise in evangelical Christianity is contributing to the rejection of religion altogether by some Americans, said Mark Silk of Trinity College. "In the 1990s, it really sunk in on the American public generally that there was a long-lasting 'religious right' connected to a political party, and that turned a lot of people the other way," he said of the link between the Republican Party and groups such as the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family. ... And, he said, it is now more socially acceptable than it once was to admit having no religion. "You're not declaring yourself a total pariah. The culture has changed in a way that makes it easier to say, 'No, I don't have a religion. Even in the past year, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama feel obliged to talk about 'those of no faith,' " he pointed out. Obama mentioned people without faith in his inaugural address in January, making him the first president to do so."

But have hope, ye of little faith. The Religious Right is not ready to give up the ship just yet!

Quote :

" Still, Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, remained hopeful that people will return to their faith ... and he thinks soon religion will be an even greater part of people's lives. ... "As the economy goes downward, I think people are going to be driven to religion." -- http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/index.html "

So, you see, the Republicans were right: cut-and-spend economic policies, and general deregulation of the financial sector is pleasing to the Lord.





[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 2:22 AM. Reason : ]

3/10/2009 2:19:40 AM

Quote :

" William Donohue, president of the Catholic League said he thinks a radical shift towards individualism over the last quarter-century has a lot to do it."

i think this has the most to do with it. I really can't think of one person that i know that attends church on a regular basis.

I also think that it has to do with religion being forced upon this generation at an early age.

3/10/2009 2:32:22 AM

There was a priest on the Colbert Report talking about this issue recently. Apparently, the effect is one that's well known and, at least to an extent, documented.

It's pretty obvious that economic downturn is going to put more people in pews. Church is free, for one thing. It also offers hope and comfort to troubled people. Getting scared, suffering people to show up on Sundays is not difficult.

Perhaps the trend could be discussed in a reasonable intelligent manner, but I suppose its easier to imply that Christians and Republicans promote poverty so that they can leech off of it.

Quote :

"I also think that it has to do with religion being forced upon this generation at an early age."

I love this bit. Pretty much everything you do at "an early age" is stuff forced on you. They force you to eat with utensils instead of just your hands. They force you to use the toilet. They force you to wear gender-appropriate clothes. This isn't a generation of people shoving their faces in soup bowls while cross-dressing and shitting in gutters. Well, other than college it isn't.

Religion has also been forced on every new generation before us for the last ever. It's effectively meaningless next to the issues of:

1) Individualism
2) Greater exposure to corruption
3) Denominational fragmentation

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 2:42 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 2:42 AM. Reason : ]

3/10/2009 2:35:36 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps the trend could be discussed in a reasonable intelligent manner, but I suppose its easier to imply that Christians and Republicans promote poverty so that they can leech off of it. "

Yep.


Sounds like Tony Perkins and Barack Obama agree about what brings people into church:

Quote :

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

3/10/2009 3:25:52 AM

^^,^^^If anything it's been forced less and less in recent generations.

Also, y'all left education off the list. Baby boomers grew up in an environment that really emphasized science--they had to beat the Russians. Then they went off to college and stayed there for multiple degrees in order to avoid Vietnam. Those two phenomena alone created some folks for whom church did not cut it anymore, and even if they continued to attend church, their attitudes towards it were certainly different than that of their parents. For example, it's evident that moe of them chose not to stifle their kids with it.

There've also been lots of social movements that older churches really haven't done a good job of staying ahead of. Non-denominational-type churches started cropping up in larger numbers to scoop up the disenchanted.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 4:44 AM. Reason : sss]

3/10/2009 4:40:45 AM

Except when it comes to issues like abortion or divorce; i'd say the catholic church has more adapted to modern society than the puritanical dogma of certain protestant churches that make up the evangelical right (i.e baptists)

My friend's catholic church even has a 5pm sunday session to try and encourage college kids and youn adults to attend who just don't want to get up early.

3/10/2009 8:32:18 AM

Quote :

"Also, y'all left education off the list. Baby boomers grew up in an environment that really emphasized science--they had to beat the Russians. Then they went off to college and stayed there for multiple degrees in order to avoid Vietnam. Those two phenomena alone created some folks for whom church did not cut it anymore, and even if they continued to attend church, their attitudes towards it were certainly different than that of their parents. For example, it's evident that moe of them chose not to stifle their kids with it."

I agree that the initial rupture was during the 1960s, but I think its less a direct causal effect from greater education and more to do with the dramatic social paradigm shift from the 1960s just like we saw in Western Europe. It was a rebellion against the old order, and the Church just happened to be one of the pillars of the previous social structure. When that was uprooted, religion went with it. My personal opinion is that it was the combined traumas of industrialization and two World Wars that led people to question the traditional authority and social patterns and look for alternatives.

Quote :

"My friend's catholic church even has a 5pm sunday session to try and encourage college kids and youn adults to attend who just don't want to get up early."

There are plenty of evangelical churches that do similar things: I've seen one that did 5pm Sunday worships and even Saturday and Monday evening services.

3/10/2009 11:13:20 AM

I consider myself fairly religious, but I find it hard to get to church every Sunday just because of my busy ass schedule. I'm sure many of ya'll have the same issues. Many people don't work just 9-5 M-F anymore. I have one job that is 8-4 and another that is on the weekends. Plus I do side work as well. When you throw in my wifes work schedule, 2 kids, trying to see family, etc. you really run out of time. Sunday my wife and oldest son went to church and I took the little guy to Lowe's to go get some yard supplies and spent the rest of the day mulching and cleaning flower beds and got done just as the sun went down. If I had hit church and then gone, we would never have gotten it done. Sorry, but its hard to fit it in my schedule.

Also why is it that Southern Baptist churches have to talk down about any alcohol consumption? That certainly ain't going to make me want to knock down the doors either as I like to have one on occasion. Just seems so hypocritical when wine is in the Bible, yet they seemingly want to forbid it. Wish I had a decent Methodist near my town to go to since thats what I grew up in and they aren't nearly as judgemental.

3/10/2009 12:24:21 PM

the Southern Baptist Church says something hypocritical?
There are contradictions in the Bible!!??

SAY IT AIN'T SO!!

3/10/2009 12:27:31 PM

Well no shit there are lots of contradictions in the Bible. I was simply saying that the stand "Drinking alcohol is a sin" is wrong. Being drunk is a sin. Not drinking is a personal choice, not Biblical. Jesus turned water into wine and drank it. I can't imagine he didn't turn it into some good shit. Guess according to Southern Baptists he was a SINNAR too.

3/10/2009 12:38:27 PM

Quote :

"That certainly ain't going to make me want to knock down the doors either as I like to have one on occasion. Just seems so hypocritical when wine is in the Bible, yet they seemingly want to forbid it."

If the Catholic church invented it; than Southern Baptists have mastered the art of convoluting excerpts from the bible in order to push their own moral/social agenda, under the name of god, onto people.

If you play violent video games
Drink alcohol
smoke marijuana
have sex before marriage
have sex during marriage except in missionary to procreate
to attend church every sunday
are pro-choice

than you are an evil sinner and going to hell

Quote :

"Being drunk is a sin."

Being drunk and beating your wife is a sin
Being drunk and driving is a sin
Being drunk 7 days a week neglecting family wife and your responsibilities is a sin
Being drunk and fucking fat chicks is a sin

Drinking surely is not and I do not see what is wrong with occasionally getting a little jolly drunk as long as your responsible.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 12:41 PM. Reason : l]

3/10/2009 12:38:54 PM

Although at the time of my conversion I was a teetotaler, I'm very glad to have joined a religion full of unrepentant alcoholics. Name me another church where you can drink vodka in the fellowship hall immediately following the Easter midnight service.

But don't tell the Baptists across the street, they let us use their parking lot for overflow on busy days.

3/10/2009 1:04:33 PM

^ Episcopalian?

3/10/2009 1:09:28 PM

I'm not seeing the Episcopals being big vodka drinkers.

3/10/2009 1:15:10 PM

No, we typically drink my pastor's homebrews.

I'm guessing you're Russian Orthodox? I actually met the priest from the RO church here in Greensboro recently. He was a convert from the Southern Baptists himself.

3/10/2009 1:56:18 PM

are any churches traded regularly? i'd like to invest.

3/10/2009 2:31:01 PM

It doesn't surprise me that America is becoming less Christian. It has already happened to a greater extent in the rest of the western world. Science gives us our best understanding of how the world works, and the more we understand about how the world works, the less viable a god seems.

The difference here is that the political establishment has found a way to utilize religion. How useful is a tool that allows you to pass laws that limit the freedom of individuals, while also increasing the power of the government - all under the guise of something sacred that can't be criticized publicly by a politician without guaranteeing the end of said politician's career?

As for the claim that increasingly poor economic conditions will lead to higher religiosity or higher church-going rates, I don't know. Some people might find that burying their problems in mysticism brings comfort. For many others, no religion will be necessary - a realistic outlook leads to realistic solutions. Believing that God will send you a check may bring you temporary comfort, but it offers no permanent solution. So, I guess it's reasonable to predict that a substantial number of people will use religion as a means of coping.

3/10/2009 2:37:43 PM

I do not think science and religion are exclusive. What hurts churches in my mind is their resistance to accept/integrate scientific discoveries into religious doctrine, its orthodox nature, desire by church leaders to enforce its social values onto others via the gov't, and hostile attitude towards though that possess a belief contrary to the established religious doctrine.

100's of years of corruption, inquisition, and hypocrisy does not help either.

3/10/2009 2:45:24 PM

here is the data in several graphs
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ncaa_expands_march_madness_to?utm_source=a-section

good to see that every single state has seen an uptick in "no religion" answers

3/10/2009 2:47:50 PM

Quote :

"I'm guessing you're Russian Orthodox? I actually met the priest from the RO church here in Greensboro recently."

Eastern Orthodox in general, but when I'm home in Greensboro I go to the Greek Orthodox Church. Since I can't find any evidence of there being a RO church in Gbso., and never having heard of one in all my time there converting and practicing, my thought is that you're confusing the two.

It's really kind of a nitpicky thing, they're all Eastern Orthodox, they mainly break it up into the national flavors for cultural, linguistic, and organizational purposes. And I could be wrong. The minority groups around there are always trying to start their own little church for their countrymen.

Wouldn't surprise me that the priest there is a convert -- I don't know him that well, he came around after I moved to Raleigh. But his name and manner make it likely. Slight, softspoken guy with a hyphenated last name?

Quote :

"good to see that every single state has seen an uptick in "no religion" answers"

Why exactly is that a good thing?

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2009 3:53:15 PM

Quote :

"Eastern Orthodox in general, but when I'm home in Greensboro I go to the Greek Orthodox Church. Since I can't find any evidence of there being a RO church in Gbso., and never having heard of one in all my time there converting and practicing, my thought is that you're confusing the two. It's really kind of a nitpicky thing, they're all Eastern Orthodox, they mainly break it up into the national flavors for cultural, linguistic, and organizational purposes. And I could be wrong. The minority groups around there are always trying to start their own little church for their countrymen. Wouldn't surprise me that the priest there is a convert -- I don't know him that well, he came around after I moved to Raleigh. But his name and manner make it likely. Slight, softspoken guy with a hyphenated last name?"

http://www.holycrossoca.org/

They're Orthodox Church in America. They were under the Patriarchate of Moscow until something happened in 1970 (my coworker that's a member says it was something Cold War related but he isn't sure).

Currently I'm attending an Episcopal parish in GBoro near UNCG, but my preference would be to get back to my roots and attend a Congregationalist/United Church of Christ, if only there was one in the area with any semblance of a young adult presence. Mostly it's just northern transplants who felt the need to be back in church. I'm just not used to liturgy, not that I have issues with it. I might convert eventually.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2009 4:13:20 PM

Ah, I'm vaguely familiar with the OCA in general but didn't know they'd set up shop in High Point. From their site it looks like they've only been around since '06, and by then I'd moved out to Raleigh. Good to know, anyway.

3/10/2009 4:19:36 PM

Quote :

"1) Individualism 2) Greater exposure to corruption 3) Denominational fragmentation"

4.) Greater exposure of believers to information that contradicts the most important parts of religious tradition
5.) More discoveries in science that overturn long-held religious beliefs (evolution, old-earth, etc)
6.) More literacy, therefore enabling people to read their holy books themselves (and realize how completely weird they are for the most part, not to mention how *wrong* they are, due to the discoveries referenced in 4 and 5).
7.) Directly seeing the results that religious extremism can have (9/11, etc). Even though most people will say "that's because Islam is violent," I think it really brings home the point, to some people, that religion can make you CRAZY. Not that it always does, but that it can.

Maybe 4 and 5 are technically part of the same thing, but my point still stands. I think that there is less need for religion, since a bunch of the questions religion was supposed to answer are now being answered by more evidence-based theories and explanations. The philosophical ones still exist, but some of them are unnecessary to some extent now. Less common is the question "why are we here" or "what is the meaning of life," because those are being replaced more and more by "how can I maximize my potential and the potential of my species and move into the future."

I think this idea that "individualism" has something to do with religion becoming less important to people is, by the way, hogwash, and a way to say "religion keeps you from being an antisocial force of evil" or something.

Quote :

"Why exactly is that a good thing?"

That needs an answer? Obviously, to a person who doesn't believe in or like religion, the uptick in nonbelievers would be a good thing.

Quote :

"Name me another church where you can drink vodka in the fellowship hall immediately following the Easter midnight service. "

Besides seeing my family, that and the food are the reasons I ever go to church, which is pretty much just easter, if I can get away with just doing that. Most of the greeks at the church I grew up in are complete jerks - self-righteous, mean-spirited, and often quite racist. They mainly come from the island of Carpinisi, though, which is basically like being from rural Louisiana or something. I thank them for making me question church due to their cynicism and meanness and getting me started on my path to nonbelievership.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ,]

3/10/2009 4:59:56 PM

the more people make decisions based on facts, empirical evidence, and reason the better. that should be painfully obvious.

3/10/2009 5:09:08 PM

Quote :

"Why exactly is that a good thing?"

umm.... because religion poisons everything and is a step back in the intellectual evolution of human society?

I'm an atheist for reason I think are "right". If I think I made the "right decision" (and of course I think that, why else would I have chosen it), then it makes me feel better to see that others are making the same decision.

I suspect that you would see it as a good thing if whatever brand of Christianity you practice was gaining in popularity, no?

3/10/2009 5:10:23 PM

Quote :

"I do not think science and religion are exclusive. What hurts churches in my mind is their resistance to accept/integrate scientific discoveries into religious doctrine, its orthodox nature, desire by church leaders to enforce its social values onto others via the gov't, and hostile attitude towards though that possess a belief contrary to the established religious doctrine. 100's of years of corruption, inquisition, and hypocrisy does not help either."

indeed. as a devout christian, i hate the way the "church" has played politics and preyed on people throughout history, much like the religious right is doing today.

in fact, the more i have learned- about history, about other worldviews, about other cultures, and about science- the more my faith has been strengthened. the more i see how God and, yes, Satan are at work in our world (omg i am caraazy believin in that i know!!!).

the problem is that too often religious people, and many Christians, are not placing their faith in God or in Christ, but actually in their very narrow understanding of God, Scripture, and how the world works. When a scientific discovery comes around that seems to threaten that understanding, they think it somehow threatens their God, when really it is just threatening their narrow and also misinformed understanding of God and the way the world works. Instead of seeking to understand this new discovery or claim, they just reject it entirely, try to discredit it, and make themselves look like fools.

But the more i have learned in recent years, on the other hand, has strengthened my belief in a God and Christ. And no, I'm not talking about some vague new agey hippie liberal universalist Jesus. I'm talking about what would be considered very traditional theological viewpoints about the existence of God, Jesus, heaven, hell, sin, redemption, etc.

What annoys me with these types of discussions is that people discredit a faith due to its followers (or people that claim to be its followers at least), when, at least with Christianity, the founder of this entire religion, Jesus, espoused the incredible fallibility of mankind in general, and especially Christians. The merits of Christianity should not be judged according to how a very large institution (Roman Catholic church) interpret and often abuse them, but rather by what Jesus taught (look at Scripture and early church history), which was very much "anti-institutionalist" actually. In fact, Jesus got crucified for talking too much crap about the powerful religious institutions of the day (Jews, Roman empire and religion).

As I've grown to see the many faults of the American church, the more I've studied Scripture, and the world around us, and the more I've seen how God works throughout history, and the more my faith has been strengthened.

With that said, many Christian authors have written about all of these issues discussed in this thread and nothing I'm saying is new either. But I do want to mention that I am reading the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis right now, and it talks a lot about how the greatest trick the devil ever played (and he's getting better at it) is to convince us he doesn't exist.

Wow that was a rant. sry. /blog.

3/10/2009 5:23:54 PM

ohmy

3/10/2009 5:52:32 PM

Quote :

"What annoys me with these types of discussions is that people discredit a faith due to its followers"

No, I'd say at least a good percentage of us discredit faith because it is inherently illogical and can be dangerous. In fact, I'd say that the only thing that makes me not want to completely destroy any semblance of faith in the world is that many people are better because of it. I've heard too many people say "without god, we could murder / rape / steal / etc" to think that we should rid the world of it.

Any time you base your life around ideas or philosophies, instead of facts, you are causing yourself and those around you trouble.

Now, that's not to say there's no way you can have faith in something and be correct. You can. However, the most important tenets of all major religions are purely faith based and involve zero to little basis in facts or reality.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2009 6:09:36 PM

Quote :

"In fact, I'd say that the only thing that makes me not want to completely destroy any semblance of faith in the world is that many people are better because of it."

We'll note for the record that the atheists, agentlion and DirtyGreek, are the ones in this thread talking about wanting to destroy things, or at least see the destruction of things. What we're not seeing is the religious people wanting to destroy atheism or science.

Religion isn't special. Anybody can be an asshole based on anything, including beliefs or facts. Natural selection as a process of evolution is a fact, and one that has led many people to wonder why we don't practice eugenics. I mean, just imagine -- a world without genetic disorders or predispositions to disease. We could feel confident that our children would be healthier. We'd be saving money that would otherwise be spent on hopeless invalids. We could focus more research on problems that can't simply be selected for -- AIDS, for instance. Sounds pretty sweet. Let's roll wheelchairs off cliffs and run a hose from the exhaust pipe of the short bus into the cabin.

But we don't want to do that. That would be wrong. It would be wrong because life is important. But believing that life is important is, in itself, a philosophy. There's not really any empirical basis for it. How could there by? How would you measure importance? Is life important because it's rare? We don't know that it is. Is it important because we have it? That seems pretty self-serving. Well, maybe that's a self-preservation instinct, and instincts aren't philosophies. OK, problem solved. Unless we're talking about endangered snails in remote locations with virtually no weight on the global food web that supports us. Why do we give a shit about them? We didn't until fairly recently, so it's not instinct. It's an idea or philosophy.

All you people with your damn ideas and philosophies disgust me. You're causing everyone around you trouble. Of course, I can't really prove that. Just an idea of mine.

Heaven -- er, no -- Logic forbid that people should lead their lives based around a philosophy of helping their fellow man, caring for the Earth, and achieving inner peace. How dare those cocksuckers poison the Earth which such baseless, illogical claptrap! They're single-handedly derailing the intellectual evolution of human society!

You're confusing religious assholes with religion. Assholes are everywhere. Absolutely no group is without them. You want to get rid of the backwards religious assholes that want to impede science and interfere with the law? Good, we're on the same side. You want to get rid of religion? We may have a problem.

3/10/2009 6:40:47 PM

Quote :

"We'll note for the record that the atheists, agentlion and DirtyGreek, are the ones in this thread talking about wanting to destroy things, or at least see the destruction of things. What we're not seeing is the religious people wanting to destroy atheism or science."

would you prefer more people to be Christian? Then you want to "destroy" atheism.

it's a two-way street, bub. My agenda is the same as yours - I think my ideas are right, you think yours are right. We both think more people should think like we do. Simple as that.

But speaking directly to your point - religious people aren't trying to destroy atheism or science (not that the two are necessarily related)? Ha, give me a break. Religions undercut science at any point possible if science steps on the toes of that religion's sacred beliefs, be it the origin of species, the age of the universe, genetic predispositions, etc.

And you think atheists have the same "freedom" to promote their voice as religions do? Really? How many hellfire and damnation billboards are there on I-85 between Raleigh and Charlotte? I don't know - too many to count. But as soon as a mildly atheistic billboard goes up? Hold on to your hats, because the Christians will come out of the woodwork to get it pulled down ASAP!

3/10/2009 7:10:38 PM

^^ Eugenics is not limited to nightmares from Nazi Germany and not unknown to be secretly packaged in US policy. Planned parenthood was founded originally to decrease the pregnancy rate among the US lower class. I do not totally dismiss the logical benefits and good eugenics could have for the US population.

Is it wrong if we could take the genetic roll of the dice out of if a woman with Hunnington passes the disease to her kids?

Really it was not until the revelation of the exploits in nazi germany that eugenics was renounced as the mainstream attitude. Still it was an openly discussed topic in American policy really until the 1960's.

I do not agree though on eugenics policies and laws based on racial or ethnic preferences but apparently some of our forefathers did.

Quote :

"With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played an important role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe.[65] This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit"[citation needed] individuals entering the country. While eugenicists did support the act, the most important backers were union leaders like Samuel Gompers[66]. The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race- mixing.[67] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[68]"

I do support eugenics in regards to modern day programs that would..

1.) Test and prevent passing down ofr sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis or AIDS
http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=560365

2.) For the preventiont "children inheriting usually fatal genetic disease".

3.) Voluntary Sterilization low income Americans for birth-control purposes.

4.) Voluntary Sterilization of pedophiles and other sexual predators in exchange for reduced sentences (assuming it is the only charge against them).

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM. Reason : L]

3/10/2009 7:19:55 PM

Quote :

"What we're not seeing is the religious people wanting to destroy atheism or science."

you had me till the last two words

didn't some state rep in oklahoma just put forward a bill to ban teaching evolution IN COLLEGE BIOLOGY COURSES

COLLEGE BIOLOGY WITHOUT EVOLUTION?

you think he did this because he's an atheist and enjoys irony?

and

Quote :

"I also think that it has to do with religion being forced upon this generation at an early age."

exactly what generation in america do you think was not forced to attend religious services at an early age

3/10/2009 7:41:37 PM

Quote :

"Natural selection as a process of evolution is a fact, and one that has led many people to wonder why we don't practice eugenics."

those people are obviously misguided, as the artificial selection process of eugenics really has nothing to do with the natural selection part of evolution.

Either way, it doesn't matter - we can't ignore or condemn the facts of science, or the scientists who discover them, because future people might misuse or misconstrue those facts. Facts are facts - Einstein's Theory of Relativity later made it possible to create nuclear weapons, but Einstein cannot be faulted for this because all he did was uncover a basic fact of the universe. Just like Darwin - he uncovered a fact of the universe. What future generations do with those facts has nothing to do with the underlying factual basis.

3/10/2009 7:52:39 PM

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 8:10 PM. Reason : nevermind, I have nothing of value to contribute]

3/10/2009 8:10:17 PM

Quote :

"I think this idea that "individualism" has something to do with religion becoming less important to people is, by the way, hogwash, and a way to say "religion keeps you from being an antisocial force of evil" or something."

I don't really know why "individualism" would change from year to year, but it's certainly not hogwash as being a contributing factor. Shit, individualism is basically my "religion" by some stretch of the definition. Church, for me (and likely plenty of other college-age ex-christians), was largely an experience of being spoon-fed ideas and expected to believe them without question... as though faith isn't something to be rationalized on one's own.

"Individualism" isn't some churchy way of saying "anti-social evil" by any means. It's about thinking for one's self and not just accepting it when others tell you what to think. This applies to church, the media, or whatever... unfortunately in a rather anti-individualist turn, some pseudo-intellectual college students get caught up in the whole "it's cool to drop religion or become an atheist when you go through college" trend. I suppose there's some form of irony in individualism becoming a peer fad.

Again, I'm not sure why there would be any rise of this in society compared to past decades, but it does exist and is a contributing factor.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2009 10:54:29 PM

Quote :

"you had me till the last two words "

Oh no no, you misunderstand, I was referring specifically to the participants in this thread. I'm well aware that this country is littered with religious assholes who want to dismantle science.

Quote :

"would you prefer more people to be Christian?"

Editing that to be more to the point. There is a difference between "I would like more people to join my group" and "I would like all people to join my group."

Quote :

"Ha, give me a break. Religions undercut science at any point possible if science steps on the toes of that religion's sacred beliefs, be it the origin of species, the age of the universe, genetic predispositions, etc."

No. Assholes undercut science at any point possible. Plenty of religious people and denominations have embraced new scientific discoveries.

Quote :

"And you think atheists have the same "freedom" to promote their voice as religions do? Really?"

Legally speaking, yeah. But nobody requires billboard companies to give equal time to every side of every argument.

And I don't know how I-85 is, haven't been to Charlotte in years. But I don't find it surprising that local advertisements reflect the predominant view in the area. There are places in America where religious adverts would be out of place and rejected. I know, my high school was one of them. I'm assuming that one public school in Greensboro is not unique in the US.

Quote :

"Eugenics is not limited to nightmares from Nazi Germany and not unknown to be secretly packaged in US policy."

I'm aware. I made it a point not to limit the concept to the Nazis, because I didn't want to Godwin up the thread. But their eugenics policies, as others, had their roots in scientists who promoted the ideas.

Quote :

"those people are obviously misguided, as the artificial selection process of eugenics really has nothing to do with the natural selection part of evolution. "

But it does. The enhancement of natural processes is something humans have been doing since we started making tools. And they both follow the same premise, which is that if you prevent a trait from being passed down, it will eventually disappear from the population or dramatically reduce in prevalence.

And I'm not condemning the scientists who come up with the theories. Perhaps some of the ones who put the theories into practice should be condemned. I'm just saying that facts and discoveries, like religious beliefs, can be the impetus, guiding cause, or instrument of horrible actions.

[Edited on March 10, 2009 at 11:25 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2009 11:24:12 PM

Quote :

"We'll note for the record that the atheists, agentlion and DirtyGreek, are the ones in this thread talking about wanting to destroy things, or at least see the destruction of things. What we're not seeing is the religious people wanting to destroy atheism or science."

We'll note for the record that I specifically said I don't want to destroy religion and noted that the reason is that it has done so many good things for people. However, my words were easily twisted by dropping a few important ones from my sentence, so good show there.

Me:

Quote :

"I'd say that the only thing that makes me not want to completely destroy any semblance of faith in the world is that many people are better because of it."

Quote :

"Plenty of religious people and denominations have embraced new scientific discoveries. "

After fighting tooth and nail against them if they went against deeply held religious tradition. Examples, off the top of my head:
evolution
age of the earth
earth-centric universe
flat earth

All of these, when discovered by science, caused the religious majority to persecute, imprison, and in some cases kill those who refused to shut up about the evidence.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 12:03 AM. Reason : .]

3/11/2009 12:01:33 AM

hell, it took like 400 years for the church to apologize for the "Galileo thing"

3/11/2009 12:09:08 AM

OK, DirtyGreek, allow me to quote you more fully:

Quote :

"In fact, I'd say that the only thing that makes me not want to completely destroy any semblance of faith in the world is that many people are better because of it. I've heard too many people say "without god, we could murder / rape / steal / etc" to think that we should rid the world of it. "

It's not exactly good phrasing, now is it? You go out of your way to say that only one thing is holding you back from wishing for the complete destruction of faith. Not normally the kind of thing you say, really, unless a big part of you wants to overcome that one thing. Seems like if you could just get past that one obstacle to your desire, you'd be ready to unleash the hounds. "The only thing that makes me not want to eat this entire cake is that it would make me fat." Does that kinda sound like I really do want to eat the cake? I'd be very happy if I could eat the cake. I just wouldn't be happy with the side effects. Of course, the cake is a lie, but you get the idea.

And then the second sentence is pretty loaded, dontcha think? I mean, the pretty obvious implication there is that you think that you think that, without religion, a lot of religious people are going to go murdering, raping, and stealing.

So as I understand it -- that is to say, how you've written it -- you would want to "completely destroy any semblance of faith," if it weren't for all the murders and rapes it's stopping. That about sum it up?

Quote :

"After fighting tooth and nail against them if they went against deeply held religious tradition."

Holy shit, it's like I'm talking to a goddamn wall.

There were religious people and institutions who fought tooth and nail against the ideas you listed.
There were religious people and institutions who did not.
There were secular people who fought tooth and nail against the ideas you listed (for secular reasons).
There were secular people who did not.

There are assholes, morons, dipshits, douchebags, wankers, and fuckbags on both sides of the religious/atheist line. Belief in God is not a unique motivator for shitty behavior. It's been a convenient and common justification for it throughout history, but I defy you to show my a causal relationship there.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 3:00 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2009 2:59:40 AM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: It's not exactly good phrasing, now is it? You go out of your way to say that only one thing is holding you back from wishing for the complete destruction of faith. Not normally the kind of thing you say, really, unless a big part of you wants to overcome that one thing. Seems like if you could just get past that one obstacle to your desire, you'd be ready to unleash the hounds. "The only thing that makes me not want to eat this entire cake is that it would make me fat." Does that kinda sound like I really do want to eat the cake? I'd be very happy if I could eat the cake. I just wouldn't be happy with the side effects. Of course, the cake is a lie, but you get the idea. And then the second sentence is pretty loaded, dontcha think? I mean, the pretty obvious implication there is that you think that you think that, without religion, a lot of religious people are going to go murdering, raping, and stealing. So as I understand it -- that is to say, how you've written it -- you would want to "completely destroy any semblance of faith," if it weren't for all the murders and rapes it's stopping. That about sum it up?"

You're devoting a lot of words to support an irrelevant observation.

1. You pointed out that only atheists were talking about a desire for destruction in this thread.

2. He pointed out that he had one kind thing to say about faith.

3. You got all wordy tryna show that maybe he does wanna destroy faith.

But what's the point? Why does your original observation about the language in this thread matter?

Did you honestly think there was something meaningful about the fact that only atheists were talking about destruction in this thread?

Even if analyzing trends in post content was a reasonable way to prove a point, this thread is still less than a page long. You need more data.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Holy shit, it's like I'm talking to a goddamn wall."

Again, this thread is less than a page long. Get to page three and then you can the bust out the "goddamn wall" frustrations. Plus, I've read the exchanges between you two, and there's nothing wallish going on.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: There were religious people and institutions who fought tooth and nail against the ideas you listed. There were religious people and institutions who did not. There were secular people who fought tooth and nail against the ideas you listed (for secular reasons). There were secular people who did not. There are assholes, morons, dipshits, douchebags, wankers, and fuckbags on both sides of the religious/atheist line. Belief in God is not a unique motivator for shitty behavior. It's been a convenient and common justification for it throughout history, but I defy you to show my a causal relationship there."

Belief in God is not a unique motivator for shitty behavior, but it is a motivator for shitty behavior.

Proving that atheists can be assholes doesn't get religion off the hook for the assholes it has a hand in. I can't starve my child, and then say, "Not my fault. After all, there are starving children everywhere. Sometimes people just go hungry...what are you gonna do?"

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Religion isn't special. Anybody can be an asshole based on anything, including beliefs or facts. Natural selection as a process of evolution is a fact, and one that has led many people to wonder why we don't practice eugenics. I mean, just imagine -- a world without genetic disorders or predispositions to disease. We could feel confident that our children would be healthier. We'd be saving money that would otherwise be spent on hopeless invalids. We could focus more research on problems that can't simply be selected for -- AIDS, for instance. Sounds pretty sweet. Let's roll wheelchairs off cliffs and run a hose from the exhaust pipe of the short bus into the cabin. But we don't want to do that. That would be wrong. It would be wrong because life is important. But believing that life is important is, in itself, a philosophy. There's not really any empirical basis for it. How could there by? How would you measure importance? Is life important because it's rare? We don't know that it is. Is it important because we have it? That seems pretty self-serving. Well, maybe that's a self-preservation instinct, and instincts aren't philosophies. OK, problem solved. Unless we're talking about endangered snails in remote locations with virtually no weight on the global food web that supports us. Why do we give a shit about them? We didn't until fairly recently, so it's not instinct. It's an idea or philosophy. All you people with your damn ideas and philosophies disgust me. You're causing everyone around you trouble. Of course, I can't really prove that. Just an idea of mine."

Religion is special actually. And it's not just an idea or a philosophy. There's a difference between having values, ideas, etc...and being religious.

Caring about life, to use your example, is different from being religious. Your comparison of the two is a cheap party trick. In fact, a lot of the stuff you've added to this thread seems cheap--kind of hollow and canned.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 6:13 AM. Reason : ]

3/11/2009 6:11:10 AM

Quote :

"There are places in America where religious adverts would be out of place and rejected. I know, my high school was one of them."

Was your high school public? If it was, I would think that would have more to do with the Establishment Clause than anything.

3/11/2009 8:16:06 AM

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the real topic of this thread the tendency for economy to drive people to religion?

Personally I find this as sick as converting on your deathbed. If I were God, I would have a special Hell reserved for people that only need me when they're downtrodden or about to die.

3/11/2009 9:35:51 AM

^AHA. If you were God, Hell would be packed.

3/11/2009 9:42:07 AM

Thanks Bridget. I'm glad to know that if I'm crazy, I'm not the only one. I certainly don't think I'm being wallish - I think we're both saying the same things over and over because we don't think the other is hearing us. Maybe we're both right. Maybe we're both wrong. But the truth is, if I'm being a wall, so is Grumpy.

He and I have never been able to have a very good conversation

Quote :

"It's not exactly good phrasing, now is it? You go out of your way to say that only one thing is holding you back from wishing for the complete destruction of faith. Not normally the kind of thing you say, really, unless a big part of you wants to overcome that one thing. Seems like if you could just get past that one obstacle to your desire, you'd be ready to unleash the hounds. "The only thing that makes me not want to eat this entire cake is that it would make me fat." Does that kinda sound like I really do want to eat the cake? I'd be very happy if I could eat the cake. I just wouldn't be happy with the side effects. Of course, the cake is a lie, but you get the idea. And then the second sentence is pretty loaded, dontcha think? I mean, the pretty obvious implication there is that you think that you think that, without religion, a lot of religious people are going to go murdering, raping, and stealing. "

I say that I'd want the complete destruction of faith if it didn't make some people better... which it does. Whether you like my wording, it's obvious that I'm saying I don't want that... but I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to destroy something you find dangerous, is there?

And do I think that without religion a lot of people would go around committing heinous crimes? Of course - they even do it WITH religion. I've heard it said SO many times, here and otherwise, that without religion people would do those things - and it's religious people who say it. I, personally, have more positive feelings about humanity, but when I hear that so often, it makes me wonder. What do you think would happen if, somehow, the whole world could be convinced there was no god? You don't think some people are only being good because they're afraid of hell? I think many clearly are.

I think some people are better with religion, and I also think it's quite clear that some people would be better off without religion. I'd rather it never existed, but since it does, I think it's like pulling out of Iraq - getting rid of it needs to happen carefully and calmly.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/11/2009 10:06:15 AM

Quote :

"Did you honestly think there was something meaningful about the fact that only atheists were talking about destruction in this thread?"

Language is important, whether you like it or not, especially in this discussion. Understanding the differences in how each side uses and interprets it is important, too. It also speaks volumes to my contention that some atheists (the vocal ones in this thread, specifically) put serious blinders on when it comes to religion. They seem intent on ignoring any religious person who has embraced science and progress and been otherwise inoffensive.

If he were in favor of destroying religion, we've got one of two paths. He really just wants to destroy socially backwards, anti-science elements of religion, which is a difficult position because it lumps more reasonable religious elements in with that crowd and ignores atheistic elements that manage to be pretty socially backwards and anti-science as well. Or his beef is really just with the entire concept of religion, in which case I want to know why my faith is so threatening to him when the only way he'd ever know I have it is by tailing me on Sundays or debating religion with me on the wolfweb.

Quote :

"Proving that atheists can be assholes doesn't get religion off the hook for the assholes it has a hand in."

Well unfortunately we've only got the two choices. Faith or not faith. If both routes can lead to shitty behavior, why is one more deserving of our wrath than the other? Religion can make us assholes. Science can make us assholes. Maybe, a high level of shittiness is innate to the human condition, and because there happens to be a lot more theism than atheism, the theists get the blame.

Quote :

"Religion is special actually. And it's not just an idea or a philosophy. There's a difference between having values, ideas, etc...and being religious. "

Explain how. Religion is a collection of rules values provided (and presumably enforced) by a higher power.

Communism is functionally pretty much the same, except the provider-god is Marx and the enforcer-god is Stalin.

Quote :

"Was your high school public? If it was, I would think that would have more to do with the Establishment Clause than anything."

My high school was public, but it wasn't establishment clause stuff. You're allowed to be a religious person on campus, and you're allowed to hold meetings of like-minded religious people about religious topics. Unless the place is filled with frothing-at-the-mouth atheists who do everything in their power to prevent it. Fortunately, most of these atheists were of the hippie pacifist type, so they couldn't actually wade into lunchtime prayer circles with truncheons, but it was not exactly a welcoming climate. And since we were specifically talking about billboards, advertisements were ripped down.

I was never involved in this part of the whole mess, although I did run into the same problems trying to promote conservatism.

Quote :

"I say that I'd want the complete destruction of faith if it didn't make some people better... which it does. Whether you like my wording, it's obvious that I'm saying I don't want that... but I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to destroy something you find dangerous, is there?"

That's two heavily qualified statements back to back.

"I would want to destroy religion if...."
"I don't want to destroy religion, but..."

You keep acting like your choice of words doesn't matter for shit. Everything you've said screams that you'd love to destroy faith. You're so deep in doublespeak I can't even tell if you know you're doing it.

Quote :

"You don't think some people are only being good because they're afraid of hell?"

I think 99.99% of those people are also afraid of the law, which can fuck up their life in the here and now. They might be inclined to be shitty in various legal ways (cheating on their wives, etc).

3/11/2009 12:56:05 PM

Quote :

"Personally I find this as sick as converting on your deathbed. If I were God, I would have a special Hell reserved for people that only need me when they're downtrodden or about to die."

Do you only visit you parents when you need the laundry done or call only when you need something?

Quote :

"hell, it took like 400 years for the church to apologize for the "Galileo thing""

The protestant movement was on even before that Galileo thing.

3/11/2009 1:17:41 PM

I can't really figure out what you two are arguing about. DirtyGreek= con religion. GrummyGOP = pro religion. What's the hangup?

Besides, the bottom line is yes, shitty times are good for getting new converts. You should also see lots of neat snake oil products and other scams to be baited into when we hit rock bottom.

3/11/2009 1:42:20 PM

Quote :

"You keep acting like your choice of words doesn't matter for shit. Everything you've said screams that you'd love to destroy faith. You're so deep in doublespeak I can't even tell if you know you're doing it. "

Perhaps you just can't process the genius awesomeness that is my awesome language geniusness.

3/11/2009 2:06:11 PM

During the holidays I remember a thread about some atheist group that put up a plaque in city hall alongside the Nativity and Menorah displays. They were upset that somebody had stolen it, and said that the act was evidence of religious intolerance. The plaque contained the prominent sentence, "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

The language used by the atheists in that case isn't exactly conducive to the rational discussion that atheists are supposedly so much more in tune with. It was clearly the sort of thing that, even if true, was still going to offend people. And you don't have a rational discussion by insulting the other guy (even accurately) and then pointing the figure when he gets upset and saying, "Aha! Look at how irrational he is!"

In this thread we have more examples of the same: Religion is poison, a step back in evolution. It's dangerous and trouble. To say nothing of the repeated implication that it is uniformly dedicated to crushing science and progress, and the equally obvious suggestion in the original post that religion and conservatism (being intrinsically bound, apparently) have colluded to reap the benefits of poverty.

The whole conflict between atheism and religion in this country is framed by terrible choices in language. Most of us could probably get along just fine without stepping on each others' toes and band together to reduce the influence of extremists. But the kind of language you see in this thread (and elsewhere, as I've said -- this isn't just a "Internet isn't serious business" issue) prevents that sort of collusion from taking place. Even reasonable and intelligent people react irrationally when you repeatedly accuse them of being an instrument of terrible damage to humanity.

I'm not trying to trip you up or anything. My attacks on the wording and implications in this thread are just that. Whatever. Fuck it. I'm giving up for now, maybe I'll feel like wandering back in later when I'm drunk.

3/11/2009 6:03:05 PM

the truth hurts, is what it comes down to, i guess.

All-in-all, the language used in this thread has been pretty civil on both sides. Nothing too inflammatory, but strong enough to get our points across.

3/11/2009 6:07:13 PM