Where do you get your news?

Everywhere I turn it looks like I'm seeing more and more atheists. I read an article a while back, I forgot the source, that said Atheism and Agnostics are on the rise while Christianity (at least in the US) is on the decline.

It makes sense since most people question the hell out of every little thing. Has anyone else come across similar findings?

Ollie Octagon wrote:Everywhere I turn it looks like I'm seeing more and more atheists. I read an article a while back, I forgot the source, that said Atheism and Agnostics are on the rise while Christianity (at least in the US) is on the decline.

It makes sense since most people question the hell out of every little thing. Has anyone else come across similar findings?

I think you have observed two real trends in the US.

First, that Atheists are more visible. While Atheists have always existed in the US, a few prominent ones have published popular books recently and have made it more acceptable--and perhaps even fashionable in some circles--to be an Atheist.

Second, the information you found in the recent article, while not entirely unrelated to the outspokenness of Atheists, is a separate issue. It just so happens that Atheism and Agnosticism are on the rise. Perhaps more nearer to the point, the number of people who observe no religion is on the rise.

If this comes about because of skeptical inquiry, as you proposed, I think it's a good thing. If it means that people have direct contact with religious texts and realize that they don't offer the best explanation of the cosmos or the best way to run a society, then I'm all for it.

The reason the rise in Atheism has come so late is that rulers have needed religion to keep the populace in its proper place. And religious authorities, until well into the early modern period, were the only ones with ability to read or authority to interpret scripture. While I don't consider the US the most literate society, enough people have read the Bible to know that its pages are not divinely written or inspired. Only now do such skeptics have a legitimate place in the public forum to voice their opinions.

Essentially, I also see the two trends you describe here, and I think they are self-reinforcing and will lead to even more disbelief in the US.

Religion did have a place in the world when government was in less control. Religion was used to keep people from doing heinous crimes because they would then be punished in a court they couldn't see or touch. I am not promoting government as the be all, end all but it does keep the majority of people from committing crimes.

My problem with religion isn't so much that they try controlling one's actions, the problem I have is that they don't seem to care about the acts the church is actually responsible for.

Ollie Octagon wrote:Religion did have a place in the world when government was in less control. Religion was used to keep people from doing heinous crimes because they would then be punished in a court they couldn't see or touch. I am not promoting government as the be all, end all but it does keep the majority of people from committing crimes.

My problem with religion isn't so much that they try controlling one's actions, the problem I have is that they don't seem to care about the acts the church is actually responsible for.

The problem isn't just the crazy people who do things in the name of a church or a religion, but the scripture that actually instructs them to do bad things. A Christian or Jew can find scripture that gives him divine permission to stone a disobedient child, an adulterer, or a convicted "sodomite". He can also find justification for genocide and the taking of slaves. All of this can be found in just a few books of the Old Testament. Don't even get me started on the Koran and the Islamic hadiths.

So, what's more important is that churches own up to what's actually in the texts they deem divinely inspired. Then, people will know the danger in simply having a watered-down version of religion and claiming ignorance when zealots go on a rampage. If we pretend that our holy books are peace-loving documents that are simply misused by bad people, we will turn a blind eye to the inevitability of bad people using very plausible interpretations of scripture for doing horrible things.

To use an example, a widely respected Islamic hadith prescribes the death penalty for apostasy (someone leaving the faith). Could anyone of basic moral fiber say that the problem is endemic to the person or community who follows through with a clearly stated rule? No. The problem clearly lies with the rule itself, and the religion of which it is an integral part.

In short, I'm all for churches taking responsibility for their actions, but that won't solve the problem of the religions themselves being harmful. Religious moderation, and the praise thereof, can have the unintended consequence of perpetuating the tendency toward religious fanaticism in the name of tolerance.

I find it meaningful to note that I'm only advocating a more open dialog on the content and meaning of popular scripture. I would never support suppression of religious practice that falls within the framework of existing laws.

What about the recent case where a family did not allow their child to get treated medically, instead, they opted to pray for the child's well being?

First, let me say that I am not religious and am probably closer to an Atheist than Agnostic.

I have heard people complain that the family should be brought up on charges because they knew that the disease could be cured medically but went to their 'newly' founded religion. I call bull ****. This country was supposed to be in favor of freedom of religion no matter how ridiculous that religion might be. I don't care if it is a 2,000 year old religion or a 2 day old religion, if they believe it, this country needs to stay true to its laws until they are adjusted.

I think religion had its place in the world and might still have a place in the world but as Ethan says, it does more to divide us than to unite us.

1- Congrats, Drago. The Cheese forums aren't blocked in China. Good job flying under the radar.

2- You, along with most people in this country, are missing a huge part of the freedom of religion idea in our country. One can make a very strong case that the freedom FROM other's religion was more important in the eyes of the founders than was the freedom TO one's own religion. In the case of the parents you mention, they were very definitely imposing their beliefs on a child that never had the opportunity to say whether or not they wanted medical attention. The parents should definitely be prosecuted. I don't care if they go to jail, but they should be sterilized and banned from adopting. Just because you have the right to believe whatever stupid **** you want doesn't mean you have the right to teach others that stupid ****.

When I say "this country" I mean the USA. China means business about keeping religion to oneself. Two of the teachers that the school tried to hire were denied visas just because they went to Christian colleges.

There are definitely some things I don't like about the government here, but as far as their stance on religion, I'm on board.

To answer Ollie's question from some time back: I'm in Beijing.

In regards to the rise of atheists and agnositics, we may be on the rise, but we're still a persecuted minority in the states. Numerous opinion polls show that the majority of the population still has very negative views about non-believers. In one, over 60% of respondents said they would vote for a Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu presidential candidate before an atheist candidate. In another, the majority agreed with the statement that non-believers are of lower moral fiber than believers. I think those were YouGov polls printed in the Economist.

ethan wrote:1- Congrats, Drago. The Cheese forums aren't blocked in China. Good job flying under the radar.

2- You, along with most people in this country, are missing a huge part of the freedom of religion idea in our country. One can make a very strong case that the freedom FROM other's religion was more important in the eyes of the founders than was the freedom TO one's own religion. In the case of the parents you mention, they were very definitely imposing their beliefs on a child that never had the opportunity to say whether or not they wanted medical attention. The parents should definitely be prosecuted. I don't care if they go to jail, but they should be sterilized and banned from adopting. Just because you have the right to believe whatever stupid **** you want doesn't mean you have the right to teach others that stupid ****.

I don't know that i stated my case properly.

My 'belief' (so to speak) is that if the government sets up a law that says you can practice whatever religion you want, then they cannot take that away simply because a child dies.

Not to play a word game but, you live and die by your laws, i don't know that the government (without previous cases dictating it) can come after a couple of lunatice parents that are practicing some obscure religion because the USA lost one little old citizen.

Sure it's bad but you can't tell me worse **** hasn't happend in this country, that will get ZERO press, in the time it took me to write this response.

I'm arguing in the "should be" world, whereas you're basing your case in the "actually is" world. My point is that an individual's religion should never be allowed to impact another person. In this case, a child died, which is a pretty big impact. You're right that, at least in the current cultural climate, no court would say that a parent cannot impose their religion on a child.

That said, I still think that a good lawyer will successfully make the case at some point down the road that the freedom from religion is more what the founders wanted than freedom of religion.

If parents were not allowed to impose their religion on their childeren, this would have been a dead topic for centuries.

that's really the beauty of how the founders of religions set it up. Their recruitment, although highly barbaric and unethical, is outstanding. They have built in so many scare tactics that they can literally terrify whole generations into worshiping a mythical creature.

Carter,

I wouldn't assume that the law is on the side of the parents in the case you're referring to. Yes, the parents have the right to practice their religion, but denying medical care to a sick child is abusive. I like to think that more often than not a jury of peers will agree with me.

By the way, Ethan, are you on board with China denying visas to people who attended Christian colleges? You didn't say it, but one might get that impression from what you said.

t-unit wrote:Carter,

I wouldn't assume that the law is on the side of the parents in the case you're referring to. Yes, the parents have the right to practice their religion, but denying medical care to a sick child is abusive. I like to think that more often than not a jury of peers will agree with me.

I would hope the jury of your peers would disagree with you until the law is changed to "religion doesn't heel sick children no matter how much you want to 'believe' it is true."

If you want your country to have freedom of religion than you have to stand beside it when you have idiots that follow their gods to their grave. I realize it involves a child but too bad for him/her, worse things happen in this world everyday.