181 replies to this topic

[Beany]

As far as I'm concerned, the importance of whether people have faith or not pales in comparison to what they DO.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

There's a funny paradox here, I can't help thinking. A large proportion of the rest of the world may be, nominally, members of one religion or other, and those who claim membership of one religion of another may be declining in the U.S., but the influence of some of those does seem to be tremendously disproportionate to their numbers, doesn't it; think how much influence teh "Religious Right" have on American politics and media. Perhaps it's because they see themselves as a minority that's under attack from all sides that they get so angry and aggressive? While, perhaps, people who've always been brought up as part of a society in which religion is part of the culture don't feel the need to assert themselves so loudly, and just take a generally laid-back attitude to it? While exactly the same reasons might apply to the Imams and the more strident & fanatical end of Islam, perhaps they have much more in common with the Religious Right than either of them would like to admit?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Sean93, on 27 December 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Take note of the fact that there are Millions of people labelled under s faith but don't actually believe in it. As far as everyone is concerned (my records etc.) I'm a catholic...but I'm not and don't believe it.

I wonder how many Atheists there are in the middle east who obviously won't 'come out' because they'll be killed, or Atheists in Sweet Home Jesus-Abama who are also afraid of coming out? That's happening all over the world.

In a developed and open society it's very easy to declare Atheism, so easy here in the UK but somewhere like Afghanistan or 'Murica? forget about it, in those places and many others, Atheists are treated with horrible contempt.

So Richard Dawkins is treated with horrible contempt in America, is he? I wonder how many copies of The God Delusion has he sold there? How much has he made from TV appearances and lecture tours, I wonder? Again, I think this is very much the phenomenon referred to above, that a very small but very, very noisy minority are seen as representative of the whole country and/or religion?

[Liquid Gardens]

747400, on 28 December 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

There's a funny paradox here, I can't help thinking. A large proportion of the rest of the world may be, nominally, members of one religion or other, and those who claim membership of one religion of another may be declining in the U.S., but the influence of some of those does seem to be tremendously disproportionate to their numbers, doesn't it; think how much influence teh "Religious Right" have on American politics and media. Perhaps it's because they see themselves as a minority that's under attack from all sides that they get so angry and aggressive? While, perhaps, people who've always been brought up as part of a society in which religion is part of the culture don't feel the need to assert themselves so loudly, and just take a generally laid-back attitude to it? While exactly the same reasons might apply to the Imams and the more strident & fanatical end of Islam, perhaps they have much more in common with the Religious Right than either of them would like to admit?

Interesting points.  I think the Religious Right in America does not react the way that it does because they are attacked from all sides, I think it's because they have been given political power.  They were/are a key voting bloc for the Republican party, and the only reason they are a key bloc is because there are so many of them.  I'm not too sure about the general statement concerning laid-back attitudes with people who were brought up where religion is more a part of the culture.  First there are a lot of places where this was definitely not the case (Northern Ireland for a long time, Iraq with the Sunni and Shiites).  Worse, in a lot of places, it's not that religion is a just part of the culture (it's actually a big part of American culture also), it's that the religion is part of the government; throwing people in jail or even shunning them socially can result in the appearance of a very laid-back attitude toward (the favored) religion.

I do agree in general with your observation about noisy minorities, although I'm not sure how much that applies in the US on this subject.  Polls here have shown that atheists are looked on quite unfavorably, and it's not just because of a vocal minority.

[eight bits]

Quote

I dont know who wrote the article posted by the OP but I suspect they've distorted the rest of the world to be like the US. Most of the planet is deeply religious

Yes, well it's a small point, but the OP isn't based on the actual research, but rather it's a journalist's spin on the executive summary . Still Waters's headline for the thread, taken from the website, is probably not even the reporter's work, but rather something cranked out by an anonymous headline writer hired by the newspaper to do just that one thing - create "eye catching" heads. Maybe the HW read the story, maybe not, or not the whole thing; it's long odds that HW read anything at all from the Pew study itself.

In any case, "Unbelief" is not the "third largest religion." Rather, it is the self-reported "religiously unaffiliated" category that came in third among the categories used in the research. What people believe about religious teachings is not an issue in this category. That the headline writer (and not the reporter) conflates "belief" with "affiliation" tells you where the news organization's priority lies, between telling the truth and jacking up its site visitor stats.

There is nothing remarkable that atheists, one among the many kinds of people who might identify themselves as "religiously unaffiliated," would represent a minority within that larger inclusive grouping.

As to the hypothetical atheists in the foxholes surrounded by hostile cultures, measuring people's beliefs isn't the point of the research. There is no reason why an atheist, just like anybody else, wouldn't affiliate with some religion, for cultural, social, family, political, economic or other advantages. The actual Pew report, sensibly enough, leaves to God the humanly impossible task of deciding who's a "true" affiliator.

That is, for those religious groups where it even matters what you believe.

Edited by eight bits, 28 December 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[Seeker79]

The problem of course is that both sides often assume their conclusions.

My good friends rhely and arbenol here assumes there are no dieties in the first place therefore there is nothing to replace only the individual driving from a different place, while lion assumes there is a diety therefore it can be replaced.

Both are guilty of assuming that their conclusion is correct. Arguing while both positions being fallacious will mean an impossibility to communicate. In stead both positions need to explore with a thought experiment from the others view point. If there is no such thing as god, then there can be no switching of servitude from god to individual, it was all individual in the first place........ If there is a god, then not serving god must be serving self.... Or possibly others like family.    But this brings up the question of personal utility. Even if there is a god, the utilitarian can argue that serving god is still serving self. Just as serving family would still be serving self.

What if god was going to send you to hell no matter what you did? You could love, and obey, but you would still be damned. If one can sincerely say they would serve such a god, then I might consider that person truly god serving. Otherwise it's all beneficial for the server anyway. Make no mistake serving a god grants many benefits either psychological and/or material to the server. It can never be seperated from the ego as the driver. The virtue in a gods eyes would have to be where you obtain your utility from.

As to atheism being a religion? Not hardly... But that dosnt mean that it's not a belief. I don't buy the non belief nonsense.

I have a non belief in UFOs and Santa. The "evidence" dosnt convince me. But I am still intelligent and personally honest enough to admit that I can't possibly have all the facts. I don't claim That my stance on the matter is not a belief just to try to seperate myself from "believers". This is silly and atheists that assert this illogical notion of a non belief are flirting with dogma which indeed brings them closer to religous like beliefs.

As to agnostics. They are certainly not fence sitters. "I don't know" if true, is the most honest answer someone can give because indeed no one can know from an objective perspective. Subjective knowledge is another animal however.

I don't believe Beliefs are choices. They come from how you evaluate information. I choose to eat a ham or turkey sandwich, but I can't possibly choose wether I like one over the other, that decision  will be made on a myriad of deep psychological & pysiological ( or where ever preferences come from ) place. Gay people don't choose to be gay, straight people don't choose to be straight. The religous don't choose to be religous and the non religouse do not choose to be non religous. Certainly people can change once the thresholds of how they process information changes their preferences are reached, but it's not a matter of choice.

Edited by Seeker79, 28 December 2012 - 03:02 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Seeker79, on 28 December 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

As to atheism being a religion? Not hardly... But that dosnt mean that it's not a belief. I don't buy the non belief nonsense.

I have a non belief in UFOs and Santa. The "evidence" dosnt convince me. But I am still intelligent and personally honest enough to admit that I can't possibly have all the facts. I don't claim That my stance on the matter is not a belief just to try to seperate myself from "believers". This is silly and atheists that assert this illogical notion of a non belief are flirting with dogma which indeed brings them closer to religous like beliefs.

I disagree mainly with this line of thinking only because it basically mixes different relative meaning of the words you are objecting to.  In the context of a discussion concerning theism, if you don't believe in god you are accurately called a 'non-believer'; that doesn't mean that the atheist doesn't believe anything at all.  Yes you can say that "I don't think God exists" is a belief, but that does not mean that the beliefs 'God exists' and 'God does not exist' are equivalent, any more than it would if you substitute the word 'Sasquatch' or 'Santa' for 'God'.  No one can possible have all the facts about anything, and it's great that we all recognize that, but that does not mean that the words 'know' and 'true' don't have utility in conversations even though they are ultimately unverifiable.  I certainly don't see anything that a typical atheist believes (there are always extremists) that can remotely be related to 'dogma', and I definitely don't buy this suggestion that I do see frequently that 'atheism is a belief and so is theism, so atheists are being 'illogical' when they assert that God doesn't exist'.  This is a false equivalence, not all beliefs are of equal validity and not all beliefs have equal support from evidence and rational argumentation.

Quote

As to agnostics. They are certainly not fence sitters. "I don't know" if true, is the most honest answer someone can give because indeed no one can know from an objective perspective. Subjective knowledge is another animal however.

Subjective knowledge is such another animal that a lot of it I don't think is accurately called 'knowledge' to begin with.  Objective knowledge at least benefits from being able to be compared against the objective reality that we appear to all share to determine it's accuracy.

Quote

I don't believe Beliefs are choices. They come from how you evaluate information. I choose to eat a ham or turkey sandwich, but I can't possibly choose wether I like one over the other, that decision  will be made on a myriad of deep psychological & pysiological ( or where ever preferences come from ) place. Gay people don't choose to be gay, straight people don't choose to be straight. The religous don't choose to be religous and the non religouse do not choose to be non religous. Certainly people can change once the thresholds of how they process information changes their preferences are reached, but it's not a matter of choice.

Good point, I've always tried to take this attitude also, that people are only so responsible for what they believe so there's no reason not to treat them respectfully (within bounds of course).  It's a tough one to discuss because you are butting against whether or not 'free will' actually exists; it is debatable that 'choosing' to eat a turkey sandwich rather than a ham sandwich is any different than 'choosing' to believe or not believe in something, but that's definitely a different conversation.  Even if we go with how we usually use the word 'choose', even though the act of belief may not be voluntary or conscious, people can choose to challenge their beliefs, learn and try to understand opposing viewpoints, etc, that would provide the information you mention to see if where they then are as far as the thresholds.  I'm sure we both know people who put their beliefs in a box and don't scrutinize them, I'd guess most people do that to a lesser or greater extent based on the topic.

[Sean93]

747400, on 28 December 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

So Richard Dawkins is treated with horrible contempt in America, is he? I wonder how many copies of The God Delusion has he sold there? How much has he made from TV appearances and lecture tours, I wonder? Again, I think this is very much the phenomenon referred to above, that a very small but very, very noisy minority are seen as representative of the whole country and/or religion?

Oh, so only people who like him should read his books...how the hell are people supposed to gain an opinion of his works if they don't read, watch it? Listen to the totally unbiased pastor should they?

And yes, Dawkin's is actually hated in America by a lot of people, as he is at home in the UK too but as I said, people have to buy his works to actually read them for themselves and make their own opinion rather than listening to others' biased ones...like many people with the bible, they just listen to the priest instead of exploring it themselves.

I don't know if you've had your head in the ground for the last few years but we all know how America feels about it's Atheists.

I can just feel the love people have for him from this video:

Edited by Sean93, 28 December 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Seeker79]

Liquid Gardens, on 28 December 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

I disagree mainly with this line of thinking only because it basically mixes different relative meaning of the words you are objecting to.  In the context of a discussion concerning theism, if you don't believe in god you are accurately called a 'non-believer'; that doesn't mean that the atheist doesn't believe anything at all.  Yes you can say that "I don't think God exists" is a belief, but that does not mean that the beliefs 'God exists' and 'God does not exist' are equivalent, any more than it would if you substitute the word 'Sasquatch' or 'Santa' for 'God'.  No one can possible have all the facts about anything, and it's great that we all recognize that, but that does not mean that the words 'know' and 'true' don't have utility in conversations even though they are ultimately unverifiable.  I certainly don't see anything that a typical atheist believes (there are always extremists) that can remotely be related to 'dogma', and I definitely don't buy this suggestion that I do see frequently that 'atheism is a belief and so is theism, so atheists are being 'illogical' when they assert that God doesn't exist'.  This is a false equivalence, not all beliefs are of equal validity and not all beliefs have equal support from evidence and rational argumentation.


Subjective knowledge is such another animal that a lot of it I don't think is accurately called 'knowledge' to begin with.  Objective knowledge at least benefits from being able to be compared against the objective reality that we appear to all share to determine it's accuracy.


Good point, I've always tried to take this attitude also, that people are only so responsible for what they believe so there's no reason not to treat them respectfully (within bounds of course).  It's a tough one to discuss because you are butting against whether or not 'free will' actually exists; it is debatable that 'choosing' to eat a turkey sandwich rather than a ham sandwich is any different than 'choosing' to believe or not believe in something, but that's definitely a different conversation.  Even if we go with how we usually use the word 'choose', even though the act of belief may not be voluntary or conscious, people can choose to challenge their beliefs, learn and try to understand opposing viewpoints, etc, that would provide the information you mention to see if where they then are as far as the thresholds.  I'm sure we both know people who put their beliefs in a box and don't scrutinize them, I'd guess most people do that to a lesser or greater extent based on the topic.

Stick around a little longer seaun, and you will see what I am talking about. Atheism is not illogical by any means, a prevelent atheist argument, however, is that atheism is not a belief. This is a defense to a truth that like theism, atheism is rooted in deep philosophical assumptions just as much as theism. Hard atheists do not like being grouped with people that have a 'belief' in anything, therefore a wild story is concocted about their 'beliefs' not being anymore of a belief than a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow ( a common example used by some atheists), yet positive assertion are stil made against the existence of divinity. Do you see the problem here. Many atheists have wishful thinking that they are so objective as to not have faith....when indeed they do.

[Arbenol68]

Seeker79, on 28 December 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

The problem of course is that both sides often assume their conclusions.

My good friends rhely and arbenol here assumes there are no dieties in the first place therefore there is nothing to replace only the individual driving from a different place, while lion assumes there is a diety therefore it can be replaced.

Both are guilty of assuming that their conclusion is correct. Arguing while both positions being fallacious will mean an impossibility to communicate. In stead both positions need to explore with a thought experiment from the others view point. If there is no such thing as god, then there can be no switching of servitude from god to individual, it was all individual in the first place........ If there is a god, then not serving god must be serving self.... Or possibly others like family. But this brings up the question of personal utility. Even if there is a god, the utilitarian can argue that serving god is still serving self. Just as serving family would still be serving self.

What if god was going to send you to hell no matter what you did? You could love, and obey, but you would still be damned. If one can sincerely say they would serve such a god, then I might consider that person truly god serving. Otherwise it's all beneficial for the server anyway. Make no mistake serving a god grants many benefits either psychological and/or material to the server. It can never be seperated from the ego as the driver. The virtue in a gods eyes would have to be where you obtain your utility from.

As to atheism being a religion? Not hardly... But that dosnt mean that it's not a belief. I don't buy the non belief nonsense.

I have a non belief in UFOs and Santa. The "evidence" dosnt convince me. But I am still intelligent and personally honest enough to admit that I can't possibly have all the facts. I don't claim That my stance on the matter is not a belief just to try to seperate myself from "believers". This is silly and atheists that assert this illogical notion of a non belief are flirting with dogma which indeed brings them closer to religous like beliefs.

As to agnostics. They are certainly not fence sitters. "I don't know" if true, is the most honest answer someone can give because indeed no one can know from an objective perspective. Subjective knowledge is another animal however.

I don't believe Beliefs are choices. They come from how you evaluate information. I choose to eat a ham or turkey sandwich, but I can't possibly choose wether I like one over the other, that decision  will be made on a myriad of deep psychological & pysiological ( or where ever preferences come from ) place. Gay people don't choose to be gay, straight people don't choose to be straight. The religous don't choose to be religous and the non religouse do not choose to be non religous. Certainly people can change once the thresholds of how they process information changes their preferences are reached, but it's not a matter of choice.

A lot of good points there.

I don't think there's too much argument that both positions rely on certain assumptions, and so are comparable to an extent. However, I don't think it's sufficient to leave it at that. As I see it, the difference lies in the nature of the assumption. For many believers the assumption of god's existence is based on a concrete and unwavering certainty that their deity of choice exists. No atheist can logically argue that their assumption has that level of certainty.

Mine certainly doesn't. I cannot say that no god exists. But what I can do is view the question of god's existence in the same way as I would view any hypothesis about the world. So, does it withstand scrutiny? What evidence is there? etc...

To my mind there's no good evidence that points to the existence of any deity so I assume that none exists. But as assumptions go, this is a 'softer' version. It's remains provisional and subject to review should further evidence come to light. In that respect it's much less like a belief and more like treating it as any other hypothesis.

[eight bits]

Quote

  For many believers the assumption of god's existence is based on a concrete and unwavering certainty that their deity of choice exists. No atheist can logically argue that their assumption has that level of certainty.

It is fine for anyone to speak about how they experience their own beliefs or opinions, but I missed how you would know that "many believers" have different credal experiences than any atheist.

Interpersonal comparisons like that are very difficult in principle, and I'd be curious to know how you've solved this problem, which so many others find impossible.

[Arbenol68]

eight bits, on 28 December 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

It is fine for anyone to speak about how they experience their own beliefs or opinions, but I missed how you would know that "many believers" have different credal experiences than any atheist.

Interpersonal comparisons like that are very difficult in principle, and I'd be curious to know how you've solved this problem, which so many others find impossible.

Ask a believer how certain they are that their god exists.

[Mr Walker]

eight bits, on 23 December 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Those who are interested in this aspect of the report may also be interested in the exisitng thread on the report as a whole,

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=239529

which also includes direct links  to the report, and value-added query features hosted by Pew.

Quote

The demographic study – based on analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers – finds 2.2 billion Christians (32% of the world’s population), 1.6 billion Muslims (23%), 1 billion Hindus (15%), nearly 500 million Buddhists (7%) and 14 million Jews (0.2%) around the world as of 2010. In addition, more than 400 million people (6%) practice various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions. An estimated 58 million people – slightly less than 1% of the global population – belong to other religions, including the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism, to mention just a few.



Those are roughly the figures i have from the new scientist 17/3/2012, which i assume came from the same report.

To me that makes  secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist the fourth biggest group, but thats me being pedantic. Of more import are the overal numbers. Even putting all those "non believers" together  and including agnostics or undecided in there, we have a total of only 750 million. The actual declared atheists or active unbelievers make up a much smaller number within that number.

A rough total of all the numbers is approx 6.7 billion.  ( the study I have adds in 400 million shamanic/tribal followers, as well as the 400 million traditional chinese believers of confucianism taoism and  chinese buddhism))

So, 750 million out of 6.7 billion modern day humans do not express an active religious spiritual belief in god, or in a  spiritual dimension to life.  That percentage is quite consistent across the world, and across a fair period of time since such surveys have been conducted..

I wil leave individuals to their own opinions of what those numbers illustrate.

Edited by Mr Walker, 28 December 2012 - 11:56 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Seeker79, on 28 December 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Stick around a little longer seaun, and you will see what I am talking about. Atheism is not illogical by any means, a prevelent atheist argument, however, is that atheism is not a belief. This is a defense to a truth that like theism, atheism is rooted in deep philosophical assumptions just as much as theism. Hard atheists do not like being grouped with people that have a 'belief' in anything, therefore a wild story is concocted about their 'beliefs' not being anymore of a belief than a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow ( a common example used by some atheists), yet positive assertion are stil made against the existence of divinity. Do you see the problem here. Many atheists have wishful thinking that they are so objective as to not have faith....when indeed they do.

Whoops, I'm not sean, you responded to me, just a typo.  I have already stuck around quite a bit not just here so I'm pretty familiar with the basics of the theism discussions.  I see the statement that 'atheism is a religion' more frequently than 'it's a belief', but again, everything then is a belief so the term doesn't have too much use.  If you believe what we call the sun is a huge burning sphere of hydrogen and I think it's a giant candle, does it really mean anything if I say to you, 'well your conception of the sun is a belief too'.

Atheism is not rooted in deep philosophical assumptions, I really don't know what you mean for example, you do seem to be trying to make some equivalence between atheism and theism.  I fully agree that some atheists can be just as irrational as some theists, but I consider that different than the concepts themselves.  I hear a lot about 'hard atheists', and I'm assuming that those are atheists who say they know for certain there is no God, but I've never seen one; Richard Dawkins himself specifically says he's not certain, but that he finds no reason to believe in God any more than any other entity you can just dream up.  I guess that all people have some faith in some things, but atheists in general don't have 'faith' that there is no god if that's what you're driving at.  One thing I've never seen an atheist/agnostic do is appeal to 'faith' as a good reason to believe something is true; that is not that uncommon for theists, and for many is actually part of their theology itself.

[Beany]

Liquid Gardens, on 28 December 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Interesting points.  I think the Religious Right in America does not react the way that it does because they are attacked from all sides, I think it's because they have been given political power.  They were/are a key voting bloc for the Republican party, and the only reason they are a key bloc is because there are so many of them.  I'm not too sure about the general statement concerning laid-back attitudes with people who were brought up where religion is more a part of the culture.  First there are a lot of places where this was definitely not the case (Northern Ireland for a long time, Iraq with the Sunni and Shiites).  Worse, in a lot of places, it's not that religion is a just part of the culture (it's actually a big part of American culture also), it's that the religion is part of the government; throwing people in jail or even shunning them socially can result in the appearance of a very laid-back attitude toward (the favored) religion.

I do agree in general with your observation about noisy minorities, although I'm not sure how much that applies in the US on this subject.  Polls here have shown that atheists are looked on quite unfavorably, and it's not just because of a vocal minority.

The religious right wasn't given power, it purposely sought to become a major political force in US politics in order to promote their religious beliefs and affect secular life through political means, which resulted in the Christian Coalition. Do some research on Ralph Reed, the Heritage Foundation, and the Christian Coalition, and you'll better understand how the Christian conservatives came to wield so much political power & influence. I remember when Bush told us that he had prayed to God and God had told him to invade Iraq. That pretty much scared the tweet out of me. The problem with people claiming god told them something, or to do something, is that it can NEVER be verified, and for me that dog doesn't hunt.