Send in the atheists

Astrology, mysticism and even some aspects of scientology have been around for centuries and have not come close to replacing theism. Nor will atheism, rational or not, replace theism in the next 100 years. Without getting into too much research, a quick look at recent growth trends for the top 3 categories indicates that both Islam and Christianity have grown in number over the last 18 years, while “non religious” have remained roughly constant. (Of course numbers will vary based on source.)1989 (1)

• Christian - 1.7 billion
• Non religious/secular - 1.1 billion
• Islam - 880 million

2005 (2)

• Christian - 2.1 billion
• Islam - 1.3 billion
• Non religious/secular - 1.1 billion

______________________________
(1)The Catholic News Service and Encyclopedia Britannica Book Of The Year, 1989
(2) 2005 Adherents data Link

When I typed in the dictionary definitions thing, I was pretty sure you'd come up with some that use the word disbelief, because I've seen them before. If you want to use those definitions, then non-belief is the default. The same reasoning applies. Sorry, I was going to comment on that, then forgot.Those things belong to the believing side of society, not the thinking side. If they grow in strength, it is at the expense of traditional religions, not the growing non-superstitious faction. In other words, they indicate a fragmentation of belief amongst the superstitious faction, and this fragmentation weakens it.So, don't be too gloomy. If you were a political antitheist, you'd welcome the splits in the opposition.

Ah, so according to you, those that have faith in our society cannot be thinkers. Is that it? But the atheists group is not growing. (per the previous data I posted.) It appears that group has remained stagnant over the last 18 years, while theists have grown significantly during the same time frame. The growth of spiritualism or mysticism is very small, insignificant when compared to the total number of theists. So your hope for fragmentation of theists, via the growth of mysticism thus leading to the disintegration and ultimate dissolution of theistic philosophy in favor of atheism, is unfounded.

Not as precisely as that. I'm sure you can think about many things. But if you rely on faith when dealing with philisophical or religious questions, then you are deliberately not thinking. That's what faith is for. It's an excuse for not thinking. I expect you've read the Zuckerman introduction about the difficulties of finding out what people actually believe. I'd be interested to know how many of the 2.1 billion counted as Christian actually believe in God. Most, I'm sure, but all, I doubt. I'd also be interested to know how we can find out the actual beliefs of people in Moslem countries, two of which still have the death penalty for apostasy, and all of which are very uncomfortable places to be an open religious dissident (to put it mildly).In relation to spiritualism, mysticism etc., I said "if they grow in strength". I don't particularly expect them to.The level of disbelief has not been stagnant in your country during the period between your two surveys, incidently.Edited by bluegenes, : missing word

Faith is an integral part of religion. So it must be relied upon when dealing with religious questions. Having faith does not mute the neurons in the brain necessary for cognition. Is that what happens to astronomers when they hope and search for the existence of dark matter? Proof?

The scientific premise of dark matter is, in fact, based on the physical evidence of its existence. I don't see what "faith" has to do with it. You're not exactly providing the best example of that with these arguments. If faith is indeed compatible with reason, surely it should be possible to defend that with arguments that aren't disingenuous.

The premise exists, sure, like the premise that God exists. Until dark matter is proven to exists, scientist will continue to believe in its existence and have faith that one day that proof will be found.

I don't understand what faith is involved when you make the most rational conclusion from the physical evidence.If anything that seems like the exact opposite of faith. Faith is when you believe in spite of the evidence. These scientists believe because of the evidence, and indeed, if contradictory evidence is discovered, they'll change their minds.That doesn't sound like faith. I think that if a Christian came before you and told you that they would only believe in God until they saw something that they couldn't reconcile with Christianity, at which point they'd become an atheist immediately; wouldn't you describe a person that ready to instantly turn their back on Christianity as "faithless?" Isn't faith when you believe no matter what your eyes tell you? That's certainly how Jesus describes it in the Bible. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed."

bluegenes:

quote:

---

The level of disbelief has not been stagnant in your country during the period between your two surveys, incidently.

---

From : The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Christians dropped from 88.4% in 1990 to 81.1% in 2001, a fall of 7.3%The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as being in the No religion/atheist/agnostic category rose from 8.4% in 1990 to 15.0% in 2001, a rise of 6.6%See link below.Religion in the United States - WikipediaIf this rate continues, Christians will be a minority in the U.S. in 50 years' time, and Christianity a virtually dead religion there in 120.We live in interesting times.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Hi, nate. This issue doesn't just affect atheists -- it affects anyone who (in the U.S.) isn't a Christian of the conservative evangelical type. That is why many, many people are already organized for the separation of Church and State, and there are already non-sectarian organizations that are organized for this purpose. The ACLU is the one that comes to mind immediately, and Google brings up others.So the question is, again, why do atheists in particular need to organize as atheists? What purpose would it serve? Why shouldn't I join one of these already established groups and contribute my money to them?In particular, I don't particularly care to promote atheism, and I don't see what I necessarily have in common with other atheists that I don't also have in common with non-atheists. My main concern is the more general principles of freedom of conscious, freedom of belief, and the separation of Church and State. My support is going to go toward these already established organizations with an already established track record.

---

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

The point is, that Dawkins was addressing, was that atheist lobbies do exist, but isn't it a shame that religious lobbies are magnitudes greater in power. Not just a little more powerful given there are more religious people, but disproportionally more powerful.

Hey, Mod. It depends. As far as advocacy of public and social policy is concerned, I actually prefer the situation as it stands. The fact that there are explicitly Christian, and usually evangelical Protestant (and sometimes explicitly Catholic) organizations that exist to promote certain policies shows, I think, the sectarian nature of these policies. On the other hand, the fact that it is non-sectarian organizations that advocate certain policies speaks, again, as to the broader acceptance of those policies. I think that it may be counter-productive to do anything that would give the impression that the fight is atheism against religionOn the other hand, if "the shame" is that religious organizations get the information out about what they believe and why, then I'm more inclined to agree with you. I am well aware of the misconceptions many people have about atheists, and, since I naively think that people are generally better off believing things that are true over things that aren't, I can see a benefit in explaining the reasons why some people don't believe in a bearded white guy in a red suit that will come down your chimney and forgive your sins.I can see the benefit to having organizations for the purpose of disseminating information and explaining their positions. It comes to the realm of social advocacy where I don't necessarily see any great need for atheists to act as atheists.Edited by Chiroptera, : Added to the last sentence for clarity. I refrained, however, from fixing my bloated prose in the rest of the post.

---

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

Hi Modulous,I am not pleasantly surprised, a little sad that people gloat over atheism's spread.Well, let me clarify. I don't care if people conscientiously believe there is no God. I don't care if people aren't sure. Who can blame them?Yet somehow, when I look at a list of countries with 'no religion' I see not a bunch of people who are entitled to their differences, but a push to rob humanity of culture, identity, and tradition. Communism destroyed so much of the culture of the world, and needless to say much of it was linked intrinsically to religion.It's like a blank, empty slate waiting to be filled, and it MUST be filled. Humans will not live without ideas and ideals. I like to know what motivates people, and what they believe. It doesn't have to be supernatural, but 'nothing' makes me vaguely uncomfortable. One may not believe in God, what DO they believe in? Can we be sure that what we are doing is replacing great traditions with something better, or just a bunch of scattered and confused people?

Nobody wants to get rid of that stuff.But keep in mind it wasn't atheists who dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas, it was the religious Taliban. The great legacy of religious-inspiried art, music, and architecture has far more to fear from the inter-sectarian conflict religion can't help but foster than from a movement to stop believing things on the basis of no good evidence. The things for which there is evidence. That's a lot more than nothing, I assure you. Not believing in things on the basis of no good evidence is not believing in nothing - it's a religious lie that the two are the same.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Non-belief and the reasoning behind it as the default I have no problem with whatsoever.
Lumping non-belief and disbelief all into the term 'atheist' is what I object to.
I still find it disingenuous to call new born babies atheists with all the connotations that has for so many people, rather than making that distinction between non-believers and disbelievers. Dude you have cheered me up immensely!!