Americans are abandoning religion in record numbers, while at the same time, the number of godless is multiplying dramatically. This news comes from independent sources, religious groups and secular organizations.
An Associated Press story published earlier this week reported that organized religion is experiencing unprecedented losses of membership and donations, while the number of people with no religion is increasing rapidly. In fact, the web address for theChicago Tribune version of the AP story included the words, “religion meltdown.”
"
Is it that they’re learning that the voice in their head and the feelings of their body could be God. More Godly than any institution that thinks they can teach it to you.
About chuffing time…
Good riddance. Maybe america will become a nice country afterall..
At last! Americans finally seeing sense. Maybe there is a God, after all.
Oh, hang on a minute…
The only problem wrong with this headline is the notion that atheism is not a religious belief. It is; atheism is just as much a matter of faith as belief in God.
The only *rational*, *scientifically literate* point of view is agnosticism… Otherwise you’re all just arguing about which unprovable myth is best.
I had a dream last night that I was talking to my dad, who is a protestant Church of Scotland minister (I’m a card carrying athesist despite, maybe because of, being dragged to church every sunday til I was 15), and I was explaining to him all the holes in the Bible and why I don’t believe God exists and he turned round after a while and goes ‘actually yeah, you’re right!’. If only it was that easy
x
I know it’s not exactly a free country anymore, but thank feck I grew up without the guilt of religion. I can’t imagine being to afraid or too stupid or too indoctrinated to be able to make a choice.
fabulous. if the americans can see sense and realise that god doesnt exist, and that the church is a busness, rather than a holy sanctuary, then maybe theres hope for the rest of the wolrd. maybe when people stop relying on the falsehood that when they die they are going to paradise, theyll relise that this llife is the only shot we get, and start trying to make this world a better place.
I think part of what’s going on is that we atheists are getting more vocal now. The “religious right”, who are really just a minority, are very vocal in this country. It’s making us atheists speak out because we are seeing how the fanatic religious side is affecting the government, e.g. this whole issue with Evolution vs Creationism taught in schools.
Where would all the local loonies go if not the local church every wee?
Lovely news. Now let’s wait for the first religious riots.
This is good and rather gives the lie to the idea that the world is becoming increasingly irrational. Religious belief might be more intransigent than a lot of us hope, but the idea that we’re returning to the Dark Ages (expressed by quite a lot of concerned uber-atheists) seems to me unfounded.
Hmm… Maybe there is some worth in those pointless internet arguments after all.
Time to dust off my old YouTube account.
Oh really? I haven’t noticed so much here in Virginia. Maybe God installed a defensive shield around the good, Christian minds of his–well–mindless followers.
Thank god I am agnostic. Absurdity has become a necessity…
Maybe they will stop indoctrinating their children with ridiculous ideas such as creationism, which is also a worrying trend over here too now.
Tim is incorrect.
Whilst to absolutely disbelieve in God is just as big a leap as the people that do believe (god, by our definition of him is unprovable and undisprovable) – it is not a type of “religious belief”, as he puts it.
This is a tactic to make having a religious belief seem like the ‘default’ option, instead of no belief at all. Just in the same way no believing in mermaids is the default position.
It’s about time.
Its not so important to decide that God “doesn’t exist”. What’s more important is the realisation that the God you believe in doesn’t automatically negate the beliefs of others… Religion wouldn’t be a problem if people remembered that it’s come down from stories to help them be a kind, compassionate human-being.
Its the blind hypocrisy that comes with taking all these stories and parables as fact that causes… well just about everything ever.
Spirituality and religion are good things, but unquestioning faith is more dangerous than giving a thousand monkeys guns…
“Thank God I am Agnostic”….
That’s ironic
. I agree however, I’m agnostic too.
Religious beliefs.. each to their own I say. Although being a christian, I believe, and that is all christians are asked to do (if you have read the bible) As a christian, i find it more a personal thing…that should be kept in the home. Church is optional – and some feel that they are forced/pressured to go, but you don\’t have to if you don\’t want to. My ex boyfriend dragged me to church but I felt that the church is bending the rules slightly, and look into things so deeply that they start to misinterpret things! I\’ve read that people find christianity too dominant, but it\’s not the religion that is dominant/controlling, it\’s the church. Because everyone comes up with different theories instead of just sticking to what is in the bible, it has now turned into competition = violence.
interesting data. It’s only taken a few hundred years but science is finally catching on!
@Tim:
Point 1 – Agnosticism is not a third choice, otherwise that would make Gnosticism a fourth choice. Theism/Atheism are a matter of Blief/Non-belief whilst Gnostic/Agnostic is a matter of Knowledge/non-knowledge.
So, I am an Atheist-Agnostic, as I have no belief in any higher power, but I am aware that we may never truly know whether or not this is true.
Point 2 – Atheism is not a Religion. Look up the definition of Religion, look up the definition of Faith. Atheism fits neither definition. If you wish to know more, follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt1wDNRkllQ
Point 3 – Can you please show me which Atheist has a belief in an unprovable myth? And which one they think is best? No Atheist argues which one is best…no Atheist believes in any of them.
Z?
I may also add – that if everyone just believed in one religion – i.e Christianity, the world would be a much better place right now. But it’s like I say ‘each to their own’. Everyone has a choice at the end of the day, but it’s those choices which have made many people worldwide turn against each other. So, the problem doesn’t lay with religion, it’s us! Perhaps then if people didn’t rant and rave about what is the the right or wrong way, and be so damn competitive as to push people into something they don’t want to get involved in, it would much more peaceful. It’s our approach towards religion and other people that is causing the problem. So perhaps (in this day in age)if it was made illegal to have people preaching in the streets and on TV, it would solve the situation??
Although then.. this would go against christianity, because it\’s about spreading the word isn\’t it – so in what way now they be able to do this if it\’s banned?? Yes, it\’ll be kept behind closed doors.. but you\’ll find every religion will become – extinct??
according to this chart, catholics seem to be increasing wildly.
http://www.thearda.com/quickStats/qs_101_s.asp
check out the other tabs on that page for more charts & info. there is also this article:
http://www.thearda.com/rrh/aheadofthetrend/col4.asp
Point 2 – Atheism is not a Religion. Look up the definition of Religion, look up the definition of Faith. Atheism fits neither definition.
He didn’t say it was a religion, he said it was a religious belief, which is true – it’s a belief about religion, that God does not exist.
Point 3 – Can you please show me which Atheist has a belief in an unprovable myth? And which one they think is best? No Atheist argues which one is best…no Atheist believes in any of them.
Another misunderstanding. The poster was referring to atheists and Christians arguing unprovable myths – the atheist arguing the unprovable myth that there is no God.
Phillis, I must applaud your ability to write incendiary headlines, followed by a post with no real information. “This news comes from independent sources, religious groups and secular organizations.” How about telling us which ones?
Guess I’ll have to go read the article myself. How boring!
- This is an excerpt from another site – we didn’t write it. – Phillis
About time, maybe they’ll stop shooting British soldiers… Here’s hoping.
Finally a victory for common sense and logic.
This could go two ways…
Either more Americans will finally be free of the ridiculous principles of organised religion and lead happy, easy lives, or the Christians and other religious believers that remain will be subjected to endless abuse. Things are never simple…
P.s. ‘Support President Bush, Trust Jesus’
I don’t think it was never necessarily the belief in God that was the problem, just as much as I’ve met friendly and wonderful atheists in my life, I’ve met friendly and wonderful agnostics and theists, equally, I’ve also met narrow-minded atheists you wouldn’t want to spend five minutes alone with. One’s belief or disbelief in God does not define one’s personality that much.
I think the bureaucracy of religion and religious traditions, however, ARE the issue, because they’re the things that drive people to believe in outdated moral systems and to claim that they’ve got it right and “things have always been this way” and everyone who’s not doing the same is clearly doing something wrong.
That said, this is still good news, good to see so many young people escape the church.
Give “Real Time with Bill Maher” a watch. Follow him on Twitter too. http://www.billmaher.com/
He did the Religulous documentary movie (from last year), that’s where I first happened upon him. Searched for him on Yahoo and found he had a weekly programme on US tv (HBO of course). If you can get past the audience clapping after every other sentence, it’s a very interesting programme with good guests. His ‘New Rules’ section of the show is good too.
@John B – thank you – I used the phrase “religious belief” (not ‘religion’) very deliberately!
@Andrew King: Is ‘atheist agnostic’ something like ‘military intelligence’?! I tease though; to be fair, my nearest dictionary definition of atheism (I quote) is “the theory or belief that God does not exist” – by this definition to call yourself ‘atheist agnostic’ requires a greater degree of cognitive dissonance than being a Catholic. I accept though that there is a weaker definition of atheism that is more like agnosticism.
Without wishing to be provocative though, I will say I hold this one thing as true: I find proselytizing by atheist zealots just as thoroughly loathsome as proselytizing by religious zealots…
I thought I was a trendsetter, and now it seems I’m just one of the crowd.
How come huh?
@Tim
The Definition you cite for atheism, while pretty much repeated in most other sources, is slightly inaccurate.
Atheism is the LACK of belief in a God or Gods. Not “belief that there is no God” Since that implies that theism is the default position. If a theist has solid concrete evidence of a God or Gods, then he is encouraged to come forth and present the evidence, but since no solid evidence has ever been presented, i can only take the position that the God or Gods do not exist. This is why i’m an atheist and not agnostic.
@Tim
Even taking your definition of atheism then agnostic atheist requires no cognitive dissonance as (has been previously pointed out) theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are two quite different categories, and everyone must fall into one or the other in each. You either believe in a god or don’t (theism/atheism) and either believe that god’s existence or lack thereof can be proven or not (gnosticism/agnosticism), there is no halfway house in either.
As for talking about unprovable myths, the way you use it agnosticism is also an unprovable myth, as we truly can’t know for sure whether or not the existence of a god can be proven.
Nick,
Fair enough and I don’t wish to challenge your views because you are welcome to them, but to say “if no evidence is produced to posit A then I shall assume B (for which I also have no evidence)” is an act of faith, not logic.
It is *not* rational or scientific. “I cannot prove A” absolutely *does not* imply A is false, it implies only that you cannot prove A. Saying “you cannot prove A therefore A does not exist” is *an act of faith unsupported by evidence*.
That is indeed what makes you atheist and not agnostic, but it is also by any rational and logical interpretation also very much a *belief that God does not exist*.
Not really an in-depth comment. I’m just giving the guy on the left a lolrus.
Support President Bush. Trust Jesus.
This is supposed to inspire people to trust Jesus? Really? Uh-oh, I think someone belongs in cuckoo-land.
@Tim
Sorry, Tim, that logic doesn’t work.
It’s not a belief that’s something is not there. It’s lack of evidence. In science, you have to prove a positive, not prove a negative. It’s like “innocent until proven guilty”. You start from “it’s not there” or “it doesn’t work like that” and throw tests on it to see if the evidence proves idea.
I do agree with you that there are atheists that prophetise (if that is a word) just as bad as theists. Personally, I try not to.
Dear Derren, I really wish it was true but the statistics dont hold up, Americans “believe” and its sad and annoying that we are at the whim of a delusional country. When they are asked a direct question as they have been in poll after poll its always the majority that has some “god” that they cling to. Its not going to be a rational country in my lifetime.
Even if this is true (who are the “This news comes from independent sources, religious groups and secular organizations.”) why would this news be something to rally around? WoooHooo, there are more people that don’t believe in God? What is newsworthy about that? Is it self affirmation that you made the right decision not to believe and now you can feel good about it? How can someones own personal faith or lack there of, have any bearing on your own personal life? I think it’s funny how non-believers make such a fuss about “news” like this and want to pin their personal issues on religion. If you don’t believe, who gives a crap. Get over it and move on.
@jfrank:
I hope you\’re not a scientist!
Science works by taking a hypothesis, and then attempting to prove it, yes. But the conclusion that the hypothesis is false until proven is very much false.
Many, many advances in science are predicated in hypotheses that are not *proven*, but seem to work anyway. \’You can\’t prove a negative\’ *does not* imply \’all things are false until proven\’. That is not a question of \’choosing\’ a logic that does or does not work by the way, that is a simple logical truth – logic is one of those things that is an absolute and very much not a matter of faith
.
Here we go again…
Russell’s Teapot
An analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
@JayKay – you’re erecting a strawman. I have no problem you choosing to *believe* something which is not proven is also false. I am objecting to the false idea that because something is not proven it *must* be false.
Evolution is *not proven* to be the way we got to be where we are today. I choose to believe it’s the most plausible hypothesis though – don’t you?
@JayKay
Thank you. That explains it well. Much better than I did.
@Tim
I explained that poorly, JayKay did a better job. What I meant was that if there is a hypothesis, it is tested to see if it fails. If the evidence and/or facts do not prove the hypothesis then it’s thrown out. In this case, there is no evidence of any superior being. There’s just a belief, but that belief has never ever been proven by any fact or evidence. Until that time, it’s not a belief that god doesn’t exist, there nothing to back up the idea that it does.
Here’s an example. I say that The Mighty Penguin is real and my god. If you disagree with me then you believe he doesn’t exist. Prove to me that The Mighty Penguin doesn’t exist.
@Tim… you just wanted a wee fight about nothing then, didn’t you..? Cheeky.
@JayKay: Not at all! It’s true, I have absolutely nothing against atheism as a belief system, it’s all A-OK with me. What I do object to – as a trained scientist – is people using a blatant misunderstanding of the scientific method as some kind of ‘proof’ that atheism is a rational truth and not a belief. I would object just as strenuously at someone who tried to use science as some kind of proof that ‘God’ exists.
@JFrank: Speaking of blatant misunderstandings of the scientific method… That God exists is a hypothesis that has not been proven or disproven. That God does not exist is also a hypothesis that has not been proven or disproven. All we have learnt from this is that either is possible, and which you choose is a matter of *belief*.
@JFrank Anastasio – I would love to take the credit, but you’ll find it was Bertrand Russell who did the hard work.
pbs.org: Isn’t evolution just a theory that remains unproven? In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties “facts” together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong — it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.
And here’s this short page to try to explain the difference between a theory… and a law. We have to look at definitions and criteria here. This should help. ‘Only’ a theory doesn’t wash.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
I’m just grateful that JayKay exists!
@JayKay
Thanks again.
@Ruby.
Agreed.
@Tim
God isn’t a hypothesis. God is a belief. Major difference between hypothesis and belief. Are you saying that if I believed that The Mighty Penguin created the universe, and no one else believes in The Mighty Penguin, does that mean that The Mighty Penguin is now a hypothesis, and has now become something scientific?
@JFrank – you are confused. Being a ‘hypothesis’ does not make something ‘scientific’. A hypothesis is simply “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.” If choose to believe that proposition is up to you, based on your evaluation.
If you choose to believe in The Mighty Penguin then, well, knock yourself out.
Equally, I have a hypothesis about the existence or otherwise of ‘God’ which I consider completely rational and as scientifically sound as atheism, and which I choose to believe. I’m not asking you to believe it, I’m merely asking that you lay off the “Science says God doesn’t exist” routine – it’s simply not true. If Science says anything about God it’s “it’s not my problem.”
American fundy whackjobs are fair game though, to be fair.
Well perhaps America is not void of rational thinking.
@ Tim – ‘American fundy whackjobs are fair game though, to be fair.’ Hahahahah!
@ JayKay
Thank God/Ra/Ganesh/the Flying Spaghetti Monster/pure lucky chance for Bertrand Russell! While being so utterly rational, he is also able to get away with talking about things like teapots and holes in socks, and saying things like, “The universe is just THERE, and that’s all!” to Catholic priests.
On the @Tim thread – atheism is not a “belief” for the simple reason that the notion of “God” is not well defined. Theology is not cosmology. Religious teachings tell people what God wants from them and not what He is. People come to belief with their own vague notion of what God is, and religion adds nothing to that notion. So for those of us who call ourselves atheists, there is no specific and well-defined concept of “God” for us to actively disbelieve in. That’s why it’s not a position of faith.
@Tim
Maybe we have a misunderstanding, then. I never said that “Science says God doesn’t exist”. In fact, I agree with you that science says “it’s not my problem”. (Part of the problem here in America is that a lot of Intelligent Design believers call science a philosophy, trying to vindicate their “theory”). If you believe in god, and that belief makes you a better person, more power to you. I am not trying to change your mind, either.
What I’m saying is that if a person, a scientist for example, believes that god exists, it’s up to that person to prove that he does, because one can’t “disprove” something exists.
Personally, a couple of things: I haven’t seen, heard, read, etc., of any proof or evidence of a god in many many years of research. Also, (to be continued).
@Mike – you make an interesting point, more or less the same as Andrew King’s, and one which I broadly accept to be honest; atheism is indeed a broad church for want of a much better phrase, and I fully accept that atheist does not automatically imply foaming-at-the-mouth strawman-destroying Dawkins zealot.
Would be nice if people realised that having some kind of religous belief also doesn’t automatically imply foaming-at-the-mouth bible-bashing nutjob zealot who’s lost all their rationality, though.
It’s been quite a fun discussion though, I think, anyway!
(continued) …and that’s it. I was going to continue, but after reading my first post, I felt I was getting “preachy” and “ranty”. Sorry about that.
However, I will say that Mike pretty much hit it on the head.
I’ve got to stop posting when I’m at work or just waking up….
I think it is safe to say we are all singing from the same song sheet here. I myself am not a believer in god, i was given the opportunity by my parents to make my own choices, and i chose science. It is understandable that people are turning away from religion in these difficult times. They are beginning to loose faith as society doesn’t have the same amount of control that it used to (My opinion). What scares me, is those who need something like religion in their life to focus on, what do they have ?
I recently met a women who almost lost her son to cancer, she turned to religion because he had survived. My question was, why didn’t she turn to medicine and the wonders of technology ? Why is believing in human ability, knowledge and skill such a hard thing to do ?
“What scares me, is those who need something like religion in their life to focus on, what do they have ?”
Just to clarify this point, i mean what do they have, once they stop believing.
Y’see, this is what I’m talking about;
@gemma – out of interest, what makes you think there is a choice between believing in ‘God’ (be it a deity of your choosing or a more nebulous concept) and science?
Why can someone not ‘believe’ in science and also God?
Incidentally, I say ‘God’ advisedly. Some organised *religions* – e.g. many of the US loony protestant wings – do preach against science (e.g. creationists, Intelligent Design types,) but that is an argument against religion [something I have some sympathy with] not God. That said, it must surprise many that for example the official stance of the Catholic church is that science is the right way to understand the universe, and the Vatican accepts evolution, for example.
The only problem wrong with this headline is the notion that atheism is not a religious belief. It is; atheism is just as much a matter of faith as belief in God.
The only *rational*, *scientifically literate* point of view is agnosticism… Otherwise you’re all just arguing about which unprovable myth is best.
Ehh no its not, not believing in something is not a belief systemn in itself, terribly sorry.
@RankBaadjin..lol at your name…you must be Scottish!
Thank Dog I’m dyslexic!
)
No offence
This is great news, just gives me a glimmer of hope for mankind. If we can manage to put these superstitions and sky-gods to rest eventually that would be real evidence of Evolution!