Alright, serious question time. Why is that atheism, or at least people admitting that their non-religious, has been on the raise? I mean, we can point towards people gaining a better understanding of logic, science and our smaller (and more insignificant) place in the universe through education, but I'm not sure that's the biggest reason and I'm definitely sure it's not the only.
Did Marx have it right that religion was just the opium of the masses that allowed miserable people in horrific living conditions to get through the day? Or was Nietzsche on the money and that mainstream religions have gotten long in tooth and now people are transitioning into worshiping new objective truths and idols like science, the value of community, nationalism, socialism, or racial/cultural purity, giving religion a lot more competition?
I'm honestly curious what people think.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, serious question time. Why is that atheism, or at least people admitting that their non-religious, has been on the raise?
It might could have something to do with it no longer being a hanging offense to say you're an atheist. At least in some parts of the world. No need to get all fancy and philosophical with Marx and Nietzsche--just being able to say "hey, I don't think there's a god or gods" without getting killed might account for a goodly number of people who don't feel uncomfortable saying it.
One way to test this hypothesis is to see what the atheist numbers look like in places where it's still a capital crime to be an atheist.
NOTE: I realize there's a causality issue here. And that it is probably a self-feeding loop. But initially, taking the crime off the books (see Hume's trial for heresy) probably helped boost the numbers a bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think atheism is on the rise now mostly due to the internet. With that channel to discuss it, people who had never seen it as a possibility now did, and with more visible atheists came a basic organization. Several books painted a bleak picture of religion as is, and endless debates were held, again often on the net. The first generation of people for who atheism was an alternative started spawning lesser minions. Alternatives to baptism were created in naming/welcoming ceremonies. Civil unions became more common. Where churches had had a very important role in people's lives, there were other options.
And most centrally... People got access to so much more information than they had had, and much of what science has said spoke against (by at least superficial interpretations) the basic transcendental direction of religious thought.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, serious question time. Why is that atheism, or at least people admitting that their non-religious, has been on the raise?It might could have something to do with it no longer being a hanging offense to say you're an atheist. At least in some parts of the world. No need to get all fancy and philosophical with Marx and Nietzsche--just being able to say "hey, I don't think there's a god or gods" without getting killed might account for a goodly number of people who don't feel uncomfortable saying it.
One way to test this hypothesis is to see what the atheist numbers look like in places where it's still a capital crime to be an atheist.
NOTE: I realize there's a causality issue here. And that it is probably a self-feeding loop. But initially, taking the crime off the books (see Hume's trial for heresy) probably helped boost the numbers a bit.
But I like being fancy and pretentious! If I don't name drop Marx and Nietzsche how will people on the forum know how well learned I am!
Seriously though, I think you make a great point. Not being burned at the stake for being a non-believer has probably helped people proudly come out of the non-believer closet and express their atheist beliefs and even try to inform others about its merits. Still, I think the raise of new ideological/political alternatives to religion probably was the causality that saw people to abandon it in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, I think the raise of new ideological/political alternatives to religion probably was the causality that saw people to abandon it in the first place.
But why would there have been new alternatives to religion, if people hadn't abandoned religion?
As far as the "it not being illegal to be an atheist" side of things goes, in Western Europe and the United States, that probably comes out of the religious wars of the 17th century. In order to put an end to the cycle of violence, nation-states began to gradually enforce tolerance between Christian sects (with varying degrees of tolerance in different nations), coupled with an emphasis on discourse and law. Once you force several different Christian groups to live together without killing one another, it's a small step to forcing them not to kill or harass other religious groups too. And once you do that, why the door is open to flagrantly tolerating Unitarians!
Then you just subtract one and... yep, atheists are no longer up there with murderers, counterfeiters, and committers of barratry on the list of people you can righteously kill in public.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, serious question time. Why is that atheism, or at least people admitting that their non-religious, has been on the raise?
Um, you do know that people have Ph.D.'s in this question, right? Turn over any flat rock and you'll find a sociologist who has at least investigated this.
My personal favorite is that religion-the-belief started to disappear when religion-the-social-institution did. If you think back to early 19th century America (or Europe),... well, frankly, it was a rather boring place. No mass-market entertainment or even news, so if you wanted something to do, you had to do it yourself. Most people lived in small rural communities that didn't have a lot of facilities like gaming clubs, libraries, or even restaurants. Church gave people something to do and a reason to hang out with other people.
When listening to the radio became a viable alternative to listening to a sermon, some people started to plump for the radio.
But that's just one factor. There are lots of others that have been proposed.
* Prosperity and affluence reduce the sense of need (Marx's argument).
* The pre-modern claims of Christianity (and most other religions, but we're talking mostly about Europe/America here, hence Christianity) are increasingly in conflict with what we know about the world; the historical hostility of Christianity to science hasn't helped this.
* Better reporting has made it easier for people to learn about differences and outright scandals in churches. It's hard to peddle The Sole Truth when there are four competing versions and three exposés.
* Religion doesn't have the social cachet is once did, which means the best-and-the-brightest are becoming lawyers and financiers instead of clergy. When was the last time you saw a public intellectual who was a pastor instead of a college professor? This, in turn, means that there aren't any compelling religious leaders to follow.
* The removal of blue laws means that I can do things on Sundays; the rise of the gig economy means that I have to.
* Reduced parental involvement (or conflicted parental involvement, as in divorce) means that it's harder to indoctrinate children in their parents' (joint) religion.
That enough reasons for you?
Alright, serious question time. Why is that atheism, or at least people admitting that their non-religious, has been on the raise?It might could have something to do with it no longer being a hanging offense to say you're an atheist. At least in some parts of the world. No need to get all fancy and philosophical with Marx and Nietzsche--just being able to say "hey, I don't think there's a god or gods" without getting killed might account for a goodly number of people who don't feel uncomfortable saying it.
One way to test this hypothesis is to see what the atheist numbers look like in places where it's still a capital crime to be an atheist.
NOTE: I realize there's a causality issue here. And that it is probably a self-feeding loop. But initially, taking the crime off the books (see Hume's trial for heresy) probably helped boost the numbers a bit.
And it's moving, in some of those places, from not just not being a hanging offense to not even being a social faux pas.
Which means more exposure to atheist ideas and points of view. Less propaganda against them. More people being raised atheist - or without religion at least.
I would go even further. As Rupert Shortt says in this piece:
The printmaker Anthony Green has said in a BBC interview that an interest in religious themes can be the kiss of death to an artist’s career. The quest for transcendence tends to be shunned in contemporary fiction, too. Hailing Marilynne Robinson’s novels Gilead, Home and Lila, the journalist Bryan Appleyard has written that these works will seem odd to large numbers of people, “because what is going on here is religion”. He added that “many, probably most, British people – artists, writers, audiences – will find this exotic because to them, religion has been embarrassed out of existence”. Another sort of cautionary tale is supplied by Iain McGilchrist, psychiatrist and critic. His masterpiece, The Master and His Emissary (reviewed in the TLS, April 2, 2010), uses discussion of left- and right-brained perspectives on the world to question narrow modern models of what counts as genuine knowledge. In essence, McGilchrist argues that tasks associated with “left-brained” activity such as problem-solving are still valued far more than the right brain’s less tractable but equally important grasp of the big picture. The author granted in private that his book was heavily religious in inspiration. But if this were broadcast, he warned, other scholars would not bother to read it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, serious question time. Why is that atheism, or at least people admitting that their non-religious, has been on the raise?
The internet, where atheists can find each other (because you don't usually discuss religion in person and you definitely don't bring up atheism at all)
The other thing is conflating non religion with atheism. claims of Actual atheism atheism has been hovering around 4% and hasn't seemed to go anywhere. "Non religious" doesn't mean the same thing. when people say that it usually means something between deism and some vague concept of christianity rather than 7th day Adventist or catholic. "spiritual not religious" is something i hear a lot to describe it.
As to why that's going up, the internet again. I think the arguments for any one particular religion being right don't work very well when you can hear everyone talking and not just the people who grew up around you who all believe the same thing.
I identified as atheist rather than agnostic after internet atheism rose, and agnosticism looked too ambivalent. I am a ritual atheist, meaning I like holidays and folkways and animism and whatnot. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quark Blast, none of the quotes you cited are from the Torah. They're from the rest of the Tanakh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*cites one source* Est Sularus oth Mithas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quark Blast, none of the quotes you cited are from the Torah. They're from the rest of the Tanakh.And if you had actually read my post you would see that I acknowledge that very fact.
Everything relevant to Judaism and the afterlife is not limited to Torah.
Correct, but once you get past the Torah, theological approaches start diverging rapidly. The fact that other than a few passing (and possibly idiomatic) references to Sheol, there's nothing about an afterlife in the Torah is why there are observant Jews who don't believe in an afterlife.
And as far as Christianity, there are plenty of Christians who view references to bodily resurrection as metaphorical. I'm utterly uninterested, as I'm not Christian, in internal Christian bickering over whether those people are "reading selectively." They're Christians, therefore that approach is a Christian approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you at least have to admire the irony that despite some of them denouncing the hobby, they participate in the same time honored pastimes of rules lawyering and insulting people with different interpretations of the text that RPG communities do.
Really, none of us are so different after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You will at the end. If you see it coming. My gran who died said about a zillion times to any and all who would listen, while she was convalescing at a nursing home the last three months of her life, "I can't believe it has gone so fast".
There is no real way to predict with any measure of accuracy or confidence the reaction of one person to their mortality based on the single data point of another person's reaction to their mortality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
some religious people are like the nerdiest nerds ever, getting into huge nerd fights over the minutia of phrasing in their texts. At least the more usual kind of nerd fight doesn't normally escalate to actual warfare.
yes but unlike faq's signs from god happe....
ow ow ow KIDDING! ow ow ow core rulebooks are heavy ow ow ow....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's like the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes" thing.
I like These Guys.
The printmaker Anthony Green has said in a BBC interview that an interest in religious themes can be the kiss of death to an artist’s career. The quest for transcendence tends to be shunned in contemporary fiction, too...
That's why Passion of the Christ "only" grossed $611,899,420 so far and counting. Not like it's the highest-earning R-rated film in U.S. history or anything... (Wait, need to check against Deadpool! Yep, Mel still noses out Marvel by $7M or so.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, serious question time. Why is that atheism, or at least people admitting that their non-religious, has been on the raise?It might could have something to do with it no longer being a hanging offense to say you're an atheist. At least in some parts of the world. No need to get all fancy and philosophical with Marx and Nietzsche--just being able to say "hey, I don't think there's a god or gods" without getting killed might account for a goodly number of people who don't feel uncomfortable saying it.
{. . .}
I grew up in the southeastern United States(*), where an awful lot of people WOULD like to send atheists (including me, even though the label isn't technically correct(**)) to Hell by hanging or worse, and are simply prevented from doing so by fear of legal consequences, so this hypothesis carries a lot of weight for me. Judging by social trends, actual increase in atheism in the United States seems fairly minimal; some of the links given above indicate a movement of people from organized religion to non-organized religion more than the movement of people away from religion (which is non-zero but not very large). Moving to Chicago, then California, and then the northeastern United States made a much bigger difference than time(***) -- and it's not as if the places I moved to have any shortage of devout and zealous people -- they just are not as able to control the politics as where I grew up, and don't feel as emboldened to torment those who do not believe their way.
(*)And Atlanta, Georgia is definitely NOT the worst part of that region.
(**)I am now a solid misotheist, and the people that I grew up with are partly responsible.
(***)At least at high school reunions, the people who show up largely seem no longer inclined to want to send me to Hell, whereas it was something of a mixed bag in high school, and definitely extremely hostile before high school. So that's something.
Yeah, it's like the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes" thing. Seems obvious to believers, and I'm sure some do question at such times, but far from all. Frankly, I find it kind of insulting.
That's a bummer. For my part, I try not to take it as an insult. It is seldom meant that way. And it's really just an example of a cognitive bias--one's own experience is given significantly disproportionate weight as evidence, simply by virtue of always being more vivid and immediate than the experience of others or statistical abstractions.
I think. I mean, that could just be me. The rest of you could have a better bead on things.
Personally I get annoyed when anyone, Christian or otherwise, points at nearly anything in the Bible and says "This means Christians believe X". Because I can almost always find a group of Christians who don't. Whether it's something I think is good or bad.The bolded portion. I'm not sure what that means.
It means that your opinion on what does and does not constitute "Christian" is not authoritative, and, in fact, is directly contradicted by the consensus opinions of large groups of well-regarded experts.
Which raises the question of why one should regard your opinion with anything more charitable than amused condescension. ("Oh, look, he's pretending to be a theologian -- isn't it cute?") Indeed, there are a substantial number of people who believe that those well-regarded experts should be treated with the same condescension ("Oh, look, Bishop Fraticelli is pretending to be a theologian -- isn't that cute? And the hat is to die for....")
Personally I get annoyed when anyone, Christian or otherwise, points at nearly anything in the Bible and says "This means Christians believe X". Because I can almost always find a group of Christians who don't. Whether it's something I think is good or bad.
For a more nuanced discussion of this, I'd recommend reading the introduction (and possibly first chapter) of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. He discusses some of the issues that he had identifying core beliefs and areas of mere theological disputes, and in fact, the problem that some things that some sects consider to be core beliefs others consider to be discussions of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
That said, biblical literalism is not generally held as a core belief of most Christianity, and this includes language that superficially appears to be arguing for literalism. Consider the problematic phrase in question : "Christ has risen." (Cf: "If Christ has not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.")
If you believe that "Christ has risen" refers to a physical resurrection of the dead body of a first-century itinerant rabbi, then Corinthians suggests that it would destroy Christianity if no such resurrection had occurred, or (even worse) if there were no such rabbi.
If, on the other hand, you consider "Christ has risen" to refer to the raising of the Christian spirit in the hearts of people, then it's quite possible for that event to have happened without needing a dead rabbi. And the statement "If Christ has not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty" can easily be interpreted as a metaphor referring to the absence of such spirit -- for example, "If Christ has not risen in us, then our preaching is empty."
Once you open the door to metaphorical language in the Bible -- which you more or less have to, unless you believe that my beloved's boobs, which "are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle which feed among the lilies" (Song of Solomon 4:5), are actually furry, spotted, and sporting a pair of antlers each -- as I said, once you open the door to metaphor, you can't turn around and say "but, incontrovertably, not THIS bit." There will always be someone who disagrees with you.
ETA: I'm sorry, I appear to have made a grevious mistake. Only deer have antlers; gazelle have horns, and therefore my beloved has horns coming out of her bra, not antlers. That kind of distinction would probably have sent me to the burning stake five hundred years ago.
ETA(2): The quote is from the New American Standard translation. King James has "roe," not "gazelle."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still say Monty Python has the right of it about the Meaning of Life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I still say the meaning of life has something to do with tables and their sudden reorientation vis a vis one of the transverse horizontal axes.
You mean the fact I did a deskthump?
You mean the fact I did a deskthump?
That's more of a sudden reorientation of your head vis a vis the surface of an immobile desk. Completely different existential paradigm, that.
Understood. I just get confused some times. Thanks for clarifying.
These theological matters can be so opaque... almost makes one want to do something... to something else... it's on the tip of my tongue... nope, lost it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
More evidence: About 85% of everything I hear or read sounds like Simlish these days... and that ratio is climbing steadily.Wouldn't give me much peace of mind to find out when I die that we're all characters in a overelaborate version of The Sims. :)You know... that would explain that time I was swimming and then the pool ladder disappeared and I couldn't get out and I had to swim around for hours until it reappeared in a totally different part of the pool...
Des graw esfredechez, nhooba des na. Eep badu.
I can't help you.
Do I believe in an afterlife? Yes.
Can I posit a different approach at this question than typical to the forum?
While it is true that they are not absolutely tied to each other, two items that seem rather consistently connected is the idea of the supernatural and an afterlife.
I just got back from a conference in Houston (World Missions Summit). Now, I went into that Summit with the belief in God. There, the following happened:
- I heard multiple stories of miraculous signs and happenings, tales of visions and situations that stretch the credulity of what can be considered coincidence.
- I, personally, underwent a series of situations that stretched the credulity of coincidence, and involved an urge to find someone of a particular description.
- I committed myself to being a missionary (not in any legally binding sense, but on my honor) with an inclination towards a particular country (they're currently open to Christian missions, but haven't always been in the past and may not be in the future, so I won't be disclosing where.)
- I heard the life testimonies of multiple missionaries who have suffered in other countries in order to complete their callings.
Moreover, I've had other occurrences in my life where I was in situations that defied the odds when I needed it most, to the point of (and seemingly with the sole purpose) of salvaging my relationship with God or leading me to a different, healthier mindset. I've also been around many other people that have had supernatural experiences and have heard additional stories of miracles from the last century.
Now, in theory, yes, it's entirely possible that I just had a combination of schizophrenia-ish imaginings, mild hallucinations, wishful thinking, and being suckered by a massive number of people who have risked their lives and forfeited traditional success in favor of going off to distant lands, being ridiculed and mistreated, in order to bring a few hope and better lives, while also being suckered by a number
people who have looked me in the eyes and called me their friend.
But at that point, it's just about as equally likely that the Holy order of Monty Python is trying to appease guys running our Sim-Earth with humor so they don't just delete the old save file.
As a 14 year old, I already believed in God, and without getting into the details, I had done something which I figured by way of the bible verse "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven" meant that I was beyond redemption. Turns out that the verse and it's context is a good deal more complicated than that. At any rate, I'm sure you can imagine how terrified and defeated I felt. So I figured what I would do was this: I had an MP3 player which had a mix of Christian music and otherwise, a close enough to even split that I figured I'd set it to shuffle. If the first song was Christian, I was forgiven. If not, I'd still aim to do the right thing, but heaven was off the table.
I prayed and hit "ok" and the first song to come up was not only a Christian song, but by one of my favorite artists, and it was a song that I'd never listened to, and was written as from God's perspective.
The song was called My Tree, by Chris Rice. The gist of the song is summed up in the last couple lines of the song:
Now I can never forget how much you mean to me
'Cause I will always remember whenever I see
Where I carved your name into my tree
Where I wrapped my heart around your name
Then I took your arrow through my heart
Just to say, "I love you"
Just to say, "I love you"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moreover, I've had other occurrences in my life where I was in situations that defied the odds when I needed it most, to the point of (and seemingly with the sole purpose) of salvaging my relationship with God or leading me to a different, healthier mindset. I've also been around many other people that have had supernatural experiences and have heard additional stories of miracles from the last century.
Survivalship Bias (which doesn't have to involve actual survival, staying in the club works too)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Des graw esfredechez, nhooba des na. Eep badu.More evidence: About 85% of everything I hear or read sounds like Simlish these days... and that ratio is climbing steadily.Wouldn't give me much peace of mind to find out when I die that we're all characters in a overelaborate version of The Sims. :)You know... that would explain that time I was swimming and then the pool ladder disappeared and I couldn't get out and I had to swim around for hours until it reappeared in a totally different part of the pool...
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not actually taking offense, it's just the implication that if you think you're atheist, it's not really a serious belief and will collapse under pressure.Yeah, it's like the whole "there are no atheists in foxholes" thing. Seems obvious to believers, and I'm sure some do question at such times, but far from all. Frankly, I find it kind of insulting.That's a bummer. For my part, I try not to take it as an insult. It is seldom meant that way. And it's really just an example of a cognitive bias--one's own experience is given significantly disproportionate weight as evidence, simply by virtue of always being more vivid and immediate than the experience of others or statistical abstractions.
I think. I mean, that could just be me. The rest of you could have a better bead on things.
No you have my intention right. People are quick to take offense over matters close to home.
To clarify: My gran wasn't panicky just being plain spoken about how quickly her life went. She had outlived all her close friends and realized that except for loved-ones her experience didn't add up to anything.
So my further point was (my POV, not gran's), once the ones you loved are gone; gone is the last little portion of meaning your life had.
I've only experienced wars through history classes, reading, and pop media, but I'd think experiencing the horrors of war could just as easily convert more believers into atheists.