Send in the atheists

Your figures for the last 16 years may or may not be right. I have no idea.However it seems undeniable to me that in the last few hundred years science has had religion in retreat in terms of influence, social power and popular thought.This trend seems unlikely to reverse.Whilst the march of science over traditionally religious grounds is not the same as an increase in active disbelief (it is quite possible to be a scientist and believe in god but those beliefs will be very different from those of their theistic counterparts from a few centuries ago) the two are intrinsically linked.

Hi bluegenes, thanks for the welcome and reply.Sonne: bluegenes: Yes, in fact the religious parties rate low in the polls here, perhaps this is because there are many religious factions - that party might give the appearance of catering for a small group. Those parties who have no declared religion catch more votes by default.The census figures also include children, so much of the data for those under 14 would likely be given by parents. It's interesting to note that the 15-24 year old age groups show a sharp rise in "no religion". Sonne

Only a small number of the listed countries are communist or former communist countries. Most of them aren't. Most of them have a very strong sense of culture, identity and tradition. Its not like atheist have had a lobotomy or anything. They still have ideas and ideals. We could ask them - most of the countries listed have freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

What choice do we have in this matter? It's not like we're talking about demanding that people believe in god or that people be prevented from believing in god. What we talking about is making people aware of different points of view, educating them about the real world, and allowing them to come to their own conclusions.No one is disbelieving because they are forced to -- how does someone force someone else to believe or not believe in something? What is happening is that people are now exposed to far more points of view than before, science has explained much about the natural world than we knew before, and in view of new information certain cultural beliefs and practices that used to be taken for granted are now being examined in a more critical light and being seen to be unlikely to be true.Honestly, that is what has the Protestant evangelicals so worked up in the US. In light of what we know about the world and about human beliefs, it actually takes an immense propaganda effort to keep people serious about this god stuff.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

quote:

---

Having faith does not mute the neurons in the brain necessary for cognition.

---

In a way it does. At least, faith can and does distort congnition.Rational cognition did not compel several men to fly planes into the WTC, lead people to murder physicians, or believe that they should kill themselves so they could get picked up by the spaceship that was following comet Hale-Bopp, etc.Faith-twisted cognition did.Faith makes people select what they want to know and ignore what they don't want to be aware of, even if it is right there in front of them.

Are you confusing modern atheists with your own conquistadors?

That reply to Anastasia's remark about communism reminded me of another thing that interested me in the Zuckerman page. In Europe, the effect of the Marxist-Leninist regimes on the former eastern block seems to have been negligible in relation to religious belief. Western and eastern Europe seem to have been losing their religiosity at about the same rate, and Poland, after several decades of a communist regime, is about the most religious country in Europe.Here's a list of the European countries with the highest proportion of non-believers, in order, with the highest at the top. I've included the U.S.A and Cuba, the only communist state in the Americas, for comparison. Interestingly, Cuba has a smaller proportion of disbelievers than even the U.S.!![I've put a "C" by all former communist countries]From Zuckerman:Sweden
Denmark
Norway
Czech Republic-C
Finland
France
Estonia-C
Germany
Russia-C
Hungary-C
Netherlands
Britain
Belgium
Bulgaria-C
Slovenia-C
Latvia-C
Slovakia-C
Switzerland
Austria
Spain
Iceland
Ukraine-C
Belarus-C
Greece
Italy
Armenia-C
Lithuania-C
Estonia-C
Portugal
United States
Albania-C
Cuba-C
Croatia-CThere's no apparent east/west pattern. This makes sense to me, in a way. After all, if any of us suddenly found ourselves living under an anti-religious regime, or a theocracy, we wouldn't change our private beliefs, would we?It's also clear that, Cuba excepted, the stats on places that still have communist regimes cannot be trusted.

Last I heard it was called brainwashing.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Like I said before:

quote:

---

Honestly, that is what has the Protestant evangelicals so worked up in the US. In light of what we know about the world and about human beliefs, it actually takes an immense propaganda effort to keep people serious about this god stuff.

---

One can maintain a "Christian" nation by making immense efforts to minimize or exclude contrary information. But once information becomes freely available and honest inquiry is encouraged, then, of course, then proportion of nonbelievers is going to increase.Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo caught by bluegenes.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I've often wondered why evangelicals aren't using oen of the various fundamentalist theocracies in the Middle East as a model for what they want to turn this nation into? It's probably the only way they can keep christianity alive for another thousand years.

---

Disclaimer:Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]

I understand everyone's replies, I understand that no one is forcing the world to cease believing, that science has provided much information for our brains to process, that art and literature, and all of the material world still exists.Science however is not a replacement for religion. Don't confuse me with saying we need religion, but we need ideas. We need to put our information into use and develope ideas which will fulfill us as humans. We need a philosophy for living. Atheism is not merely a disbelief in God: it has the potential to be much more. It can take our purpose in life from the trancendant to the immediate. If we shift goals, we gain a new perspective on every action. It's not overnight, but it will happen.You are not the one who said it, but I have a big problem when folks believe that religion is the cause of strife. It is merely conflictng ideals which cause strife, and atheism can be no different in the end.

People certainly do maintain their own beliefs, Poland is an example of a nation that was commited to retaining its Catholcity, and there have been many nations where religion went underground.The stats by themselves are really meaningless. They can't take into account whether people were natives to the country, refugees, younger generation, or influenced by communist ideas of neighboring areas. I would prefer to see a before C after C chart if one exists. I am more of the mind that Communism got its grips on everybody regardless of whether it was public or not.

(Post obsolete, as Chiroptera has corrected a misleading typo referred to here)Edited by bluegenes, : additionEdited by bluegenes, : Post became obsolete

Chiroptera, are you saying the USA is a Christian nation?I say it is a very religious nation not to be confused with Christlike.Of which your group is just one more religion, without a name.Religion - Wikipedia According to this definition of religion. You need to change then to the I think.But to correct you further there is no such thing as an unbeliever.
Unless you are using a very narrow definition of unbeliever to mean there is no God. There are a lot of things I do not believe in, but God is not one of them.Enjoy

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Well, you can argue about what the definition of religion is or should be, if you want. I think that it is clear what people are meaning when they are using religion in this thread. I won't explicitly state what that meaining is because I think that, like most people, the actual meaning that people are using is probably rather vague and ill-defined.However, you should be careful before you just pull out any definition of the word that suits you; if the meaning you are using is different from the meaning other people are using, then you are not discussing the same thing and not really communicating.As I said, I agree that people aren't very clear about what the word religion means, and most people would probably have some trouble specifying exactly what they do mean. If you are having trouble with a conversation where the meanings of the words aren't clear or are vague (like I often do -- mathematical training has ruined me for ordinary small-talk discussions), then you might have to ask for clarifications. The danger is that the topic of conversation veers off into a discussion of semantics, but sometimes that can't be helped.- First of all, you do not know what group I belong to, or whether any of the groups to which I belong counts as a religion. But that is a matter of what you mean by religion. The definitions you provide might be useful in some contexts, but not in the contexts in which I am interested -- namely the workings of societies. Religions is, in my opinion, best defined as a social phenomenon, and I prefer a definition of religion that explains its role in society. I usually think of religion of a shared experience among people who see themselves as a community and includes, among other things (some of which are in the definitions you suggest), rituals. By this definition I don't see myself as religious since I don't share many beliefs or rituals or sense of purpose with a community with which I identify. But that is simply a matter of definition.So, I may or may not be religions. That depends on the definition of religion that you decide to use. By the implicit definition used in this thread, I think that I am not. According to the sociological definition that I use, I think that I am not. According to the definition that you use, I may be or may not be. I don't know.This is Modulous' thread, and if he wants to clarify what he (or his sources) includes as religious, then he can. I think it is clear that this thread is about organized belief in what can be termed the supernatural, especially in organized worship of the supernatural. It's not the definition I prefer, but in order to communicate I have to use the same meanings as other people.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine