There has been a lot of talk recently about our movement and the growth thereof. Newsweek really highlighted the growth of the “nones” in their article The End of Christian America, and since then there have been a flurry of responses from Christians of all kinds, all in true denial.
It reminds me of that Monte Python Parrot Sketch:
“This parrot is dead”
“No it isn’t”
“Yes it is! look at it it’s pushing up daisies!”
“No it isn’t, it’s just resting”
Now I am not saying Christianity is dead. I’m saying it’s dying. The only growth in Christianity is in under-developed nations — we are the last part of the civilized world to dismiss their mythology. Civilization is the enemy of religion (one of many — also included on this list are education, reading, the Internet, speaking, and thinking, but I digress).
When the Pope talks about condoms spreading AIDS, or when a Congressman tries to get Congress to ignore global warming because “God is in control and will kill us when he so chooses”, people know when you’re spewing bull, even when they like the message. Indeed, it has to be embarrassing to be a believer these days to SOME extent — their leaders are either lying to their flock, starting wars, hiding pedophiles, cheating on their wives with hookers, or simply sliding into irrelevance (where is Pat Robertson these days?). The result of that embarrassment is, of course, more wishful thinking, as Christians are wont to do.
Take for example this article by Stephen Prothero, which includes the following:
The fact of the matter is that only a small portion of the “nones” is truly secular. This information isn’t in the ARIS report, but when I called Keysar in an effort to dig deeper into the beliefs and behaviors of the religiously unattached, she told me that when asked about God, 23% of the “nones” said they believed in a higher power and 21% pledged their allegiance to a personal God.
Let’s assume Prothero telling the truth. I think it’s fair to assume that the 21% pledging allegiance are a part of the 23% that are theistic (although the way it’s phrased would make you think otherwise — simply wouldn’t make sense to pledge to a god in which you did not believe). OK. Last time I checked, 77% was far from a “small portion”, but OK. So from 16% we’ve now gone to 12%, which is still 5X more than Jews.
HOWEVER — did you notice how they went one way without the other? Yes, some of the “nones” in the ARIS survey are theistic, but what about those “church pew atheists”? There are LOTS of people who call themselves by a religion’s name but don’t believe any of that god bunk. For example, this article suggests that half of the Jews in this country are atheists. But the Christians will have none of that talk, and the surveys don’t really study that because it’s hard to get a closeted atheist to come out and say it in a survey, even if it’s true.
That will be short-lived. More studies are being funded to study the religious landscape and the world will continue to learn more about itself, spurred on by the ARIS survey and the visible growth of our movement, which has changed dramatically in the past few years.
The movement’s past involved vicious circles of
Ignorance of atheists => hate for atheists => fear OF Christians BY atheists =>atheist closeting => more ignorance of atheists.
This circle has, I believe been broken, and replaced with a new one. Now, Atheists are being seen and heard, either by billboard or Internet or news item, while Christians continuously embarrass themselves.
More frustration with religion => exploration => understanding => conversion (GROWTH), OR at least tolerance => closeted atheists being emboldened => more outed atheists (GROWTH) => more understanding.
We are just beginning to grow.
I don’t need too many examples to support my assertion, and I don’t need to twist words. Look at the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris books’ success (and notice that the Baylor study only studied the religious books, not the nonreligious ones).
Look at the Examiner, the on-line news source which only a few months ago had one reporter covering atheism (which was news in and of itself), and now has this many, working for money, reporting on atheism — and this is just one on-line news source.
Look at this blog — one of the smaller blogs on the subject — getting 15K unique hits/day. Look at the conventions, which are selling out regularly now (future conventions will be larger). Look at the Secular Coalition for America, which now officially has a “place at the table in the white house“.
Even better, look at the panic on the other side. You can measure our success by their pure, visible, knee-jerk panic. The more they stick their head in the sand or complain about how we are wrecking society, the more you know how much we matter. The more we appear in the news, the more people talk about us, and the more success we have, the more we will grow.
Helooo Polly! I got a nice cuttlefish for you!
neo….does this mean that the chicken did come before the egg….
I’m guessing ole JCC has no answers for me. SIGH.
The universe is certainly not internal. It has an ending, however death does not. If you die, it’s the end for you. In other words: say good-bye to reality. (Y)
atheist_republican:
My apologies again for the delay in responding (had another busy weekend facilitating a class on Expelled).
And that would be correct if you assume the genealogy is exhaustive. The text is explicit about Ham being Noah’s direct descendant, but that’s where the certainty of the lineage ends. It’s quite possible, and more than probable (given that this lineage was originally passed on verbally) that multiple, un-enumerated subsequent generations existed after Ham. So, again, your timeline is dependant on an implied lineage that cannot be verified textually. Other evidence is needed that you have failed to provide.
No. That version of events is impossible to substantiate from the Biblical text.
I do. I can only pray that you can understand my counter argument.
This was too good to pass up:
Uh, you conveniently omitted a key word there: reason — as in “inductive/deductive reasoning.” Classic circular definition and irrefutable proof that atheism relies more heavily on the blind faith that reason exists than Christianity does on its evidence-based faith in God…
jcc,
It’s your Bible, is it missing 300 generations between Ham and Nimrod? The Bible is very explicit in the geneology from Noah to Nimrod (four generations) and Nimrod founded Babylon and Akkad. Seems your Bible has a lot of missing and wrong information.
atheist_republican:
Actually, no, it’s not. I didn’t write it.
Quite possibly.
Again, there’s no way to verify that that is an exhaustive lineage.
Missing?—absolutely. Wrong?—not in matters of salvation.
You know what atheist republican? For what it’s worth, I like you. You bring your facts to any debate. I guess that’s how freethinkers help each other grow.
There are definitely certain fiscal policies I have in common with republicans. Maybe we aren’t enemies.
But, absent from this debate, thusfar, is the name Shem, from which comes the term antisemitic. Maybe you know, I do not tolerate bigots.
I really don’t care where you stand, because where I stand and where you stand will both be forgotten by history. But, you seem like a smart guy, are we brothers or enemies? I don’t like bigots.
NeoWolfe
neowolfe,
I welcome Arabs (and Iranians, and Turks), wholeheartedly. I welcome their architecture, their cuisine, their art. I absolutely do not welcome their religion. If that sentiment makes me a bigot, then you don’t want to hear what I think of Scientology.
Simply put, I am an atheist, nothing more, nothing less. I view all religious beliefs in an identical light. However I am forced by members of religions to make judgement calls based on the actions I see.
JCC-
“Uh, you conveniently omitted a key word there: reason — as in “inductive/deductive reasoning.” Classic circular definition and irrefutable proof that atheism relies more heavily on the blind faith that reason exists than Christianity does on its evidence-based faith in God…”
I’m just as tired of beating this horse as anyone else but common. Arguing that atheists require faith to “believe” in logic is one dumb thing, to say that Christianity requires LESS faith is ridiculous.
1. Every Christian I know prides themself on their faith. Hell, faith is often synonymous with religion.
2. In order to use our reasoning skills to interpret scripture and understand it, under your argument, we must have faith not only in reason, but also that the Bible actually exists and that somehow the thing isn’t full of fairy tales.
Show Me Some Proof:
Well, that’s a well thought-out and articulate refutation—and a very strong indicator that you’re unable to intellectually defend that assertion.
No it isn’t. Christians believe that the God who created everything—including reason—exists, and that is the intellectually defensible premise of our argument for the existence of reason. Your premise is that reason, like everything else in the universe that makes life possible, exists purely by chance. And for those who pride themselves on how it has shaped their thinking, that’s a mighty big leap of blind faith.
Yes. It’s a faith based on historical evidence—not the blind faith you have that reason is reasonable.
Yes, and that includes the religion of atheism.
Um, the Bible does actually exist. If you’d like, I’d be happy to send you one.
Dave:
Now that my posts must consistently “await moderation”—which takes a minimum of three hours to publish — indicates that you’ve clearly “black-listed” me. Given that I’ve never engaged in profanity or name-calling here (I’ve only defended myself when attacked), and the fact that when I do have the time to post, the threads on which I’m active consistently draw the largest volumes, it makes no sense for you to attempt to muzzle me as a blogger here.
This indicates that you’re fearful of what I have to say and are doing everything short of kicking me out. This ridiculously long turn-around time for my posts to publish only serves to frustrate your fellow atheists who have chosen to engage me in a conversation.
Why are you afraid of me and what I have to say? I thought the point of this blog was to welcome discussions, but you’re clearly trying to censor them.
What’s up?
jcc,
Your Bible has no historic evidence for the existance of God. It mentions a few real places, a few real people, but so does the fan-fics written today.
“No it isn’t. Christians believe that the God who created everything—including reason—exists, and that is the intellectually defensible premise of our argument for the existence of reason.”
Well your God did an awful job creating your form of reason. I, like many here, are not satisfied with the default answer of I don’t know (God did it).
“Yes, and that includes the religion of atheism.”
For starters, I am just as agnostic as I am atheistic, although this is not to say that I see anything wrong with atheism; I simply point this out so you do not categorize me with the belief that I have all the answers or that I rule out a god or supernatural power with 100% certainty. I do neither, but I openly reject any and all religions that have been presented to me or I have learned of to this day, and will continue to do so until I have evidence to suggest otherwise. I would call myself a doubting Thomas, in that I do not have faith in any form of superstition nor anything that I cannot see or predict through scientific/mathematic models. I am no scientists, but I take their word for it (only after seeing a little evidence) that the world is 4-5 Billion years old as well as a few other scientific principles and universal laws the guide our world.
Science could very well be considered a religion, but it bases nothing on chance. I encourage you to read a book on natural selection (or even a small section of a Dawkins book discussing the laws of probability) if you think that chance plays a large role in evolution.
“Yes, and that includes the religion of atheism.”
And NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
And baldness is a hair color.
/good grief.
AR-
Not to fuel the fire, I know exactly where you’re coming from- buuuttt…
Religion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Not saying we all generally agree on much, but atheism/agnosticism/humanism could fit that.
Show Me Some PROOF,
Lumping atheism/agnosticism/humanism into the category of religion along with all the real religions creates the situation where gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, and time could be called liturgy. Not good.
I’m just saying that our core set of beliefs is that traditional Christian, Islamic, Jewish, etc. bullshit is just that: BS
Even if that is a system of unbelief, its still what we all agree on, and therefore, by definition, our religion.
atheist_republican:
So, a creation account confirmed by cosmological evidence doesn’t count? And the historic figure of Jesus of Nazareth—whose followers were eyewitnesses and chroniclers of his miracles, death and, most importantly, resurrection don’t count either?
Show Me Some Proof:
Hear! Hear! And don’t forget the stubborn, (religiously) dogmatically driven, refusal to acknowledge even the possibility that scientific evidence exists for a designed universe and life itself. Atheist Richard Lewontin said it in no uncertain terms: “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” Terribly open-minded of him isn’t it?