BBC News: American is going through an Atheism Boom Period

[EGarrett]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7053157.stm

Interesting article on the recent surge of popularity in Atheism.

I'm not pretending that this is the end of religion in America, but it gives us a good glimpse of what the eventual end of mass religion will/would be like. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

[Cello Man]

I'm doing my part. :D

[Upchurch]

I'm not pretending that this is the end of religion in America, but it gives us a good glimpse of what the eventual end of mass religion will/would be like. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
I would hope that it comes, not with a bang, but with a cheer for the realization of the fullest form of religious liberty.


'course, it's more of a mouthful.

[Freethinker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7053157.stm

Interesting article on the recent surge of popularity in Atheism.

I'm not pretending that this is the end of religion in America, but it gives us a good glimpse of what the eventual end of mass religion will/would be like. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

I hope to god they are right. :p

[Apology]

A lot of new atheists return to their original faith in the long run, sorry to say :(

[Marquis de Carabas]

I was atheist when atheism wasn't cool.

[Upchurch]

I was atheist when atheism wasn't cool.

What're you going to be now, then?

[grayman]

What're you going to be now, then?

Probably get a bike, grab a nun (http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/07/templates/listpop.html?mcVideo=1259781099), and ride.

[Magic 9-Ball]

Just by asking and talking to people have I found that atheism is more widespread than I ever thought. And it's possible it's more widespread than being reported.

Why? I still think a lot of Atheists think it's easier not to talk about it than be taken to task by believers for expressing their non-beliefs. I almost never get "Oh, really?" or "That's interesting". I get the third degree: "Why?" "What caused you to..." "Don't you feel you've lost your way...?" etc... It's almost like defending myself each time.

Not that that's bad, but it's basically the exact same discussion each time, answering the "Why?" questions.

[Ladewig]

A lot of new atheists return to their original faith in the long run, sorry to say :(


I'd like to see some evidence of that before I accept it.

[articulett]

I'd like to see some evidence of that before I accept it.


Most teen disaffected by religion as teens return in adulthood... but I don't consider them atheists. I think most atheists by though stay atheists. It would be like going back to believing in Santa or rain dances after learning the facts.

[Marquis de Carabas]

What're you going to be now, then?
An asshat.

[Lonewulf]

An asshat.
:D

[Upchurch]

An asshat.

Oh, like that isn't cool. :rolleyes:

:D

[Beerina]

Oh, it's cool. It just hasn't been adopted massively, yet. Kind of like being Goth in the late 1800s as opposed to in 9th grade in High School in the 1990s.

[DoubtingStephen]

I can't think of anything that is more important than being critical of religious delusions and the horrible practices they too often promote.

[Apology]

I'd like to see some evidence of that before I accept it.

There isn't a study or anything but about a third of my Religion and Philosophy graduating class has reverted to their original faith over about a 20-year period. I'd estimate that's 30 out of 90 stated atheists.

[Aquila]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7053157.stm

Interesting article on the recent surge of popularity in Atheism.



Astrologer's explanation (correlation):

Uranus (freedom, disruption, revolution) in Tropical* Pisces (faith in the unseen, non-matierial level of conscousness). Therefore, freedom from, or revolution in religious faith.

*the Tropical Zodiac is a theoretical circle of signs, each of 30 degrees, and does not match the consellations of the same name visible from earth.

[GeeMack]

There isn't a study or anything but about a third of my Religion and Philosophy graduating class has reverted to their original faith over about a 20-year period. I'd estimate that's 30 out of 90 stated atheists.


It sounds like you're saying there were about 90 students in your Religion and Philosophy class, and that pretty much all of them were atheists, and that somehow you've become aware of the faith situation of at least 30 of them over the past 20 years. Although your original claim that a lot of atheists return to their faith seems plausible, your anecdotal evidence sounds, well, completely fabricated.

[skeptifem]

It sounds like you're saying there were about 90 students in your Religion and Philosophy class, and that pretty much all of them were atheists, and that somehow you've become aware of the faith situation of at least 30 of them over the past 20 years. Although your original claim that a lot of atheists return to their faith seems plausible, your anecdotal evidence sounds, well, completely fabricated.


haahahaa, it is a pretty hilarious claim.

i love this place.

[grayman]

A lot of new atheists return to their original faith in the long run, sorry to say :(

Originally we are all atheists. It is when we are programmed by our caretakers as we mature that religious faith enters the scene.

[Ladewig]

There isn't a study or anything but about a third of my Religion and Philosophy graduating class has reverted to their original faith over about a 20-year period. I'd estimate that's 30 out of 90 stated atheists.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. Are you in touch with 90 people you took a class with 20 yars ago?

[DOC]

Interesting article on the recent surge of popularity in Atheism.

Has anybody else noticed the recent surge in messed up youth like Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc.

I wonder if that former mouseketeer Annette Funicello of the 50's ever considered shaving her head or going after a reporter with an umbrella like the former mouseketeer Britney Spears.

[Fnord]

I've read of surveys that conclude something like, "80% of Americans claim Christianity, yet only 20% claim to attend church."

I wonder how many of those who claim Christianity are (a) just trying to get rid of the survey-taker, or who are (b) avoiding a possible interrogation by Christian fundamentalists if they admitted to being atheists?

Hypothetical example: If I were accosted by a buzz-cut redneck and a couple of his NRA buddies asking if I were a Republican, I'd probably say "yes" to get rid of them AND to avoid a confrontation.

[skeptifem]

i personally was wondering the ages of the people they talked to.

[grayman]

Has anybody else noticed the recent surge in messed up youth like Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc.

I wonder if that former mouseketeer Annette Funicello of the 50's ever considered shaving her head or going after a reporter with an umbrella like the former mouseketeer Britney Spears.

Are you saying that we never had a problem with youths in the fifties or that it just wasn't reported?

[Fnord]

Are you saying that we never had a problem with youths in the fifties or that it just wasn't reported?


Don't you watch any movies from that era?

Any time two gangs started to rumble, the music would start playing from outta nowhere, and then they'd all start dancing!

[rocketdodger]

Has anybody else noticed the recent surge in messed up youth like Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc.


Yes, your point is well taken. If nobody is free to do anything but what the juju tells us, there won't be nearly as many young actresses making fools of themselves.

I AM SOLD. GIT ME A BIBLE RIGHT NOW!!

[Fnord]

Has anybody else noticed the recent surge in messed up youth like Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc.


Back then it had more to do with getting their butts whipped if they messed up than any Fear O'God.

Nowadays, they're more likely to get a "time out" and have their cell phones confiscated for an hour or two.

[Apology]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. Are you in touch with 90 people you took a class with 20 yars ago?

No I'm saying that about 30 of the 90 atheists taking the same course of study have gotten back to me over the years with invitations to their weddings (which were held in churches), christening announcements for their kids, free tickets to the church play they're starring in, religiously worded engagement announcements in the local paper, emails soliciting donations for their various church-related charities, etc.

I know you guys don't like the idea that some of you will revert to theism but I assure you over time you will know at least one person who does, if you keep in touch with anyone from your past at all.

[rocketdodger]

That was a pretty shady philosphy of religion class if it had that many reverts come from it.

I would also say that when atheists fall in love with theists (because I have to admit some theists are pretty hot) they might as well just go along for the ride. That doesn't mean they really buy into the juju, though.

[Fnord]

That was a pretty shady philosphy of religion class if it had that many reverts come from it.


Sometimes the dragon wins, and it has nothing to do with the speed of the knight's horse.

In other words, taking a "Philosophy of Religion" class has little or no influence on the permanency of a person's beliefs, or the recidivism therefrom.

... brain hurt ... no more think ... need lie down ... :explode

[Apology]

That was a pretty shady philosphy of religion class if it had that many reverts come from it.

I would also say that when atheists fall in love with theists (because I have to admit some theists are pretty hot) they might as well just go along for the ride. That doesn't mean they really buy into the juju, though.

It wasn't a philosophy of religion class---Philosophy and World Religion classes were held in the same department---the Philosophy department. Christianity was not taught there; it was assumed that everyone already knew all about it, so the other religions were the focus. If anything, the department encouraged atheism rather than discouraging it. I couldn't tell you why people reverted after college, I just know that they did. I think that a lot of them are going along for the ride too, but it's hard to continue calling yourself an atheist if you go to church on Christmas and Easter.

As a matter of fact, are they paying lip service to Christianity, or are they paying lip service to atheism? Were they never really atheists, although they claimed they were very vehemently, or are they not true Christians now? All we have to go on is what they tell us, and a surprising number of the atheists I have known are telling me that they are now Christians again.

[bokonon]

Just because you're getting church-affiliated announcements for baptisms, christenings, weddings, and funerals doesn't mean they're not coming from atheists. My kids will probably be married in the church, because it will make my wife happy, and she makes me happy. That doesn't mean the kids or myself believe the doctrine, because we don't. We also don't make a big deal about it around the house. A friend of the family died a couple of years ago, and when we got to the funeral, they asked me to deliver a bit of scripture they'd typed up for the occasion, and I did it without batting an eye. If they'd simply asked me to say a few words, I wouldn't have been quoting the bible, but that isn't what they asked me. I usually wave goodbye to the wife and kids when (once a month or so) they go to church these days, because the kids are old enough that I don't have to "set a good example" any more, but when they were younger I went to services myself, stood up when everybody sang, and dropped a dollar in the plate when it came around. When a co-worker was recommending "The Purpose-Driven Life," and trying to get me to come to his discussion group, I just smiled and shrugged. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the fact that people are paying lip service to religious traditions. Outside of the internet, and little signals I exchange with my kids, I pretty much keep my thoughts on religion to myself.

[linusrichard]

it's hard to continue calling yourself an atheist if you go to church on Christmas and Easter.

I can't see why it would be hard. Atheism is about what you believe (more specifically, what you don't believe). Belief is not a requirement for going to any building I can think of, not even a church. Maybe you can't think of any reasons to go besides belief, but that says more about your imagination than anything. Some atheists might enjoy a mass on an aesthetic level. Others might have gone to church when they were young and want to reconnect with the community in this way. Others might see how it brings joy to a more religious relative to see them in church, and figure it's worth the inconvenience. Others (I would wager the largest group) go as part of a twice-yearly family outing. Some atheists might just be plain closeted. This is just off the top of my head - I'm sure we could come up with a long list.

As far as lip service to atheism vs. lip service to Christianity - accepting for the sake of argument the idea that there was pressure in school to be atheist, what possible pressures would an ordinary person face outside the academy to be or to seem atheist? This is the least trusted group in America, right? The only group for whose members a majority of Americans categorically would not vote for president? If I were not in this group, I can't imagine why I would pretend to be. Perhaps some people face unique circumstances, but I find it implausible that a full third of your graduating class has a reason to "pay lip service to atheism."

And the stories about wedding invitations, etc., is about the most ridiculous non-evidence I've heard. I bet a lot of atheists get married in churches. Again, if you can't think of a reason why, think harder. Church plays? Church-related charities? Silly silly non-evidence.

Look, churches are a major part of community and civil society. I have a lot of family members who - well, I don't know if they're atheists or not, but they sure aren't strongly religious, they definitely aren't Presbyterians, and I doubt they're Christians, all very active in the Presbyterian church here. Why? Nothing to do with belief, everything to do with community involvement, etc. It's cultural, not religious.

You might like to claim everyone in a church for the theist team, but they don't all belong there. Holy crap, I spend money that says "God" on it and I went to school where a vast majority of the students and teachers recited the Pledge of Allegiance (revised anti-Commie version). Maybe I'm not really an atheist either!

[Cello Man]

Astrologer's explanation (correlation):

Uranus (freedom, disruption, revolution) in Tropical* Pisces (faith in the unseen, non-matierial level of conscousness). Therefore, freedom from, or revolution in religious faith.

*the Tropical Zodiac is a theoretical circle of signs, each of 30 degrees, and does not match the consellations of the same name visible from earth.

Aquila, correlation does not equal causation, and astrology is bunk anyways. The same force driving the upsurge in atheism (critical thinking) is also revealing that psuedosciences like astrology are nonsense. Read further if you're so inclined.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

[articulett]

That was a pretty shady philosphy of religion class if it had that many reverts come from it.

I would also say that when atheists fall in love with theists (because I have to admit some theists are pretty hot) they might as well just go along for the ride. That doesn't mean they really buy into the juju, though.

Most people who want to invite others to a wedding choose the church option because there's not a lot of other ways to do it publicly--they just choose whatever church they had as kids... I can't imagine any atheist JREF members converting. I hear about it, but from less than trustworthy people. I don't see it at all. Maybe in the past, when science couldn't explain things so well--but a JREF member-- these people are pretty aware of the ways people (including themselves) can be fooled. I think JREF is more likely to move theists towards the light of atheism (as has been demonstrated by numerous posters here)-- I can't see the reverse happening.

But I bet a lot of people say they believe just in case (ala pasquale)-- in case saying it counts for something and keeps away unknown evil and such. I don't even know if there's much of a difference between believing in something invisible and immeasurable and saying you believe in such for many people.

[DoubtingStephen]

Most people who want to invite others to a wedding choose the church option because there's not a lot of other ways to do it publicly--they just choose whatever church they had as kids...

Despite my ex-wife's efforts to afflict our children with Catholicism, my atheist daughter and her atheist husband chose an atheist Justice of the Peace to conduct a Jeebus-free wedding ceremony earlier this month. Boy was I the proud Papa!

Her brother and his lovely wife also had a wedding ceremony years ago that was 100% reality-based, with no religious claptrap at all.

Ever since them young'uns were knee high to a grasshopper I learned them up to question everything, especially authority.

I think that the incidence of atheism in the US population is especially high among those under 20 years old. This holds great promise for the future IMHO.

[slingblade]

BBC News: America is going through an Atheism Boom Period

Atheists don't go boom. That's a Fundie stunt.

[Apology]

These people reverted.

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/about.php
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Not accepting facts doesn't make them go away. We do the world no good if we adopt beliefs that are no more logical or rational than those portrayed by religious folk. The belief that no atheists return to religion later is clearly false.

Sure, you can argue that the Atheists for Jesus guy isn't really an atheist, but he says he is. You could also argue that Antony Flew (now a theist) sounds more agnostic and deistic, but he says he is a theist. Theists try to make arguments for people like Einstein being a theist, but Einstein said he was not. If we try to argue that the Atheists for Jesus guy is really a Christian, then we're doing the same thing theists do when they claim Einstein was a theist.

Atheism cannot resort to the same tactics that theists use and expect to succeed. If it didn't work for theists back then, what makes us think that it will work for us now?

[arthwollipot]

I know this is a thread about America, but where I come from, most people seem to get married in a park. Drive around some of the public parks in Canberra on any spring Saturday afternoon and I'd be surprised if you didn't see at least one wedding.

Not saying that people don't get married in churches - I'm sure a lot do. But Canberra's parks are beautiful in the spring, and the opportunity is just too good to pass up.

Australia has (as far as I have been able to tell) always been apatheist. Church and religion just aren't that important to most people. When pressed, most will call themselves Anglican, or Catholic, or whatever, but I think you'll find that only a small percentage actually go to church regularly.

Of course, religion not being such a big deal for most people means that those people for whom religion is a big deal consider it a much bigger deal than they otherwise would. Hence Fred Nile (Australia's version of Pat Robertson).

It's good to see the upsurge in non-religiousness in the US. You might not know this, but the excessive religiousness of the States is frequently made the butt of jokes here in Australia. Sorry about that.

"Religiousness". Is that really a word?

[SomeGuy]

These people reverted.

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/about.php
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Not accepting facts doesn't make them go away. We do the world no good if we adopt beliefs that are no more logical or rational than those portrayed by religious folk. The belief that no atheists return to religion later is clearly false.

Sure, you can argue that the Atheists for Jesus guy isn't really an atheist, but he says he is. You could also argue that Antony Flew (now a theist) sounds more agnostic and deistic, but he says he is a theist. Theists try to make arguments for people like Einstein being a theist, but Einstein said he was not. If we try to argue that the Atheists for Jesus guy is really a Christian, then we're doing the same thing theists do when they claim Einstein was a theist.

Atheism cannot resort to the same tactics that theists use and expect to succeed. If it didn't work for theists back then, what makes us think that it will work for us now?

The atheist for jesus guy specifically says that he doesn't believe in a deity, nor in a deitic status of jesus. He only wishes to follow the moral lessons of the story about this made up person.

If that counts a conversion back to christianity, I can see why you're also counting church weddings.

In my opinion you're only a christian if you believe in jesus his divinity, otherwise you are in fact closer to being a muslim (who see jesus as a prophet) or a jew(who think jesus either didn't exist or was just one of the blokes).

[Apology]

The atheist for jesus guy specifically says that he doesn't believe in a deity, nor in a deitic status of jesus. He only wishes to follow the moral lessons of the story about this made up person.

If that counts a conversion back to christianity, I can see why you're also counting church weddings.

In my opinion you're only a christian if you believe in jesus his divinity, otherwise you are in fact closer to being a muslim (who see jesus as a prophet) or a jew(who think jesus either didn't exist or was just one of the blokes).

I think this guy would be really offended if you compared him to Muslims or Jews. I also think that the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would object to that description, as they do not believe that Jesus was a God, but rather a prophet sent by/inspired by God, but they still strongly identify themselves with Christianity. You are saying that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians by that definition. My definition says "Preach Jesus? You're a Christian."

From reading his website it appears that this guy believes in Jesus and feels that Christianity was hijacked from the Ebionites by Paul. He clearly promotes Jesus on his website and denounces the teachings of Paul. He furthermore states that the Ebionites were "the true apostles", which tends to imply that there is some divinity associated with Christ. He seems to be strongly anti-theistic due to his animosity towards the religious right, but he's so laudatory about the Ebionites and Jesus that it seems to contradict his stated atheism. Apparently he sees a difference between plugging Jesus on his website and joining a pre-existing Christian faith.

Can he be "for Christ" and still be an Atheist?

Are "Jews for Jesus" still Jews? According to Judaism you cannot be a Jew and believe in Jesus. They say they're still Jews, and they also say they believe in Jesus. So are they Christians or Jews?

According to definition, he cannot believe in God, or, by extension, Christ, and still be an atheist. You can claim him if you want, since he calls himself atheist, but he does not believe what other atheists believe.

Now that we've discussed the Atheists for Jesus guy, how about Antony Flew? He was considered an atheist authority, much like Dawkins, before he converted. His previous atheist works are being removed from circulation now due to his conversion. I imagine that many who were converted to atheism by him are now questioning atheism and considering a return to religion. It might even explain the behavior of some of my classmates.

[linusrichard]

Are "Jews for Jesus" still Jews? According to Judaism you cannot be a Jew and believe in Jesus. They say they're still Jews, and they also say they believe in Jesus. So are they Christians or Jews?
Personally, I think it makes the most sense to consider Christianity the world's largest and most successful Jewish cult. However, this is not the conventional way. Jews for Jesus believe in the divinity of Christ, and are therefore Christian. "Jewish" can describe an ethnicity or a religion. In the first sense, you can have Jewish atheists, Jewish Muslims, and even Jewish Christians, and J4J are Jewish Christians. In the second sense, J4J are not Jews, only Christians.

According to definition, he cannot believe in God, or, by extension, Christ, and still be an atheist. You can claim him if you want, since he calls himself atheist, but he does not believe what other atheists believe.

Just because some people believe Christ was God (including Mormons, by the way), doesn't mean that everyone who believes Christ's teachings should be followed believes Christ was God. This guy doesn't "believe in Christ" in the same way a Christian does. He doesn't believe in God. He doesn't believe that Christ was God.

When you say "he cannot believe in God, or, by extension, Christ, and still be an atheist," do you mean "or, by extension, the divinity of Christ," or "or, by extension, the teachings of Christ," or "or, by extension, the existence of Christ"? Or something else?

What does it mean to say that "he does not believe what other atheists believe"? What do atheists believe? As you should know if you hang around this forum for more than a day or two, atheists have exactly one belief in common: that there is no God. This guy has that belief. So, yes, he does believe what other atheists believe. Now, beyond that, some atheists might believe that Marx has good things to say. Some might follow Rand. Some might follow the Buddha. Some might follow Confucius. And, yes, some might follow the teachings of Jesus. So it comes down to your definitions: if you define a Christian as someone who follows the moral teachings of Christ, then there is no contradiction between Christianity and atheism. This guy is both a Christian and an atheist. I am then somewhat of a Christian and an atheist. If you use the more usual definition, then this guy is not a Christian, so there's no contradiction - he's just an atheist.
Now that we've discussed the Atheists for Jesus guy, how about Antony Flew? He was considered an atheist authority, much like Dawkins, before he converted. His previous atheist works are being removed from circulation now due to his conversion. I imagine that many who were converted to atheism by him are now questioning atheism and considering a return to religion. It might even explain the behavior of some of my classmates.
Did you read the article you linked to? It's not exactly an inspiring story of a return to religious faith. At best, he's waffling at the border between agnosticism and deism. It's probably fair to say that he's no longer an atheist, but even that's not something I can say with confidence based on the article. He's sure not a Christian or anything close to it.
Is there any evidence for the claim that his works are now being removed from circulation? I ask for evidence because I don't consider the claim plausible on its face.
Most importantly, why does it matter? A person's arguments stand on their own, whether that person continues to support them or not. If an atheist was convinced to be an atheist because of Flew's work, that work still stands. If an atheist was an atheist because he decided to just believe whatever Flew believes, well, why do we care about the beliefs of such a ridiculous person?

[GeeMack]

Not accepting facts doesn't make them go away. We do the world no good if we adopt beliefs that are no more logical or rational than those portrayed by religious folk. The belief that no atheists return to religion later is clearly false.


The belief that some invisible, all powerful being has some control over the actions of man and nature and casts all non-believers into a fiery hell for eternity is also clearly false. One big difference is this: Nobody, at least in this conversation, believes that no atheists return to religion later. Your straw man has been outed. On the other hand, millions upon millions of people believe in that invisible magic bully.

According to definition, he cannot believe in God, or, by extension, Christ, and still be an atheist. You can claim him if you want, since he calls himself atheist, but he does not believe what other atheists believe.


It seems likely there are many atheists who accept that the Jesus Christ of the Bible existed, as a human being, not as a component of some kind of magical entity. There would be no conflict with atheism there. You are wrong in your understanding of the definition.

Also, there is no believing or disbelieving "what other atheists believe." Atheism is simply a position of non religiosity, a lack of belief in deities, the default position into which we are all born.

Now that we've discussed the Atheists for Jesus guy, how about Antony Flew? He was considered an atheist authority, much like Dawkins, before he converted. His previous atheist works are being removed from circulation now due to his conversion. I imagine that many who were converted to atheism by him are now questioning atheism and considering a return to religion. It might even explain the behavior of some of my classmates.


The numbers you've presented regarding your classmates still don't gel. I don't think anyone here accepts that particular anecdotal evidence as reasonable. It still looks like you made it up.

Atheism cannot resort to the same tactics that theists use and expect to succeed. If it didn't work for theists back then, what makes us think that it will work for us now?


What sort of "tactics" are those? You do seem to misunderstand atheism. It is merely a lack of belief, not a particular system of belief. We are all born atheists. Many, perhaps most of us are indoctrinated into one religion or another during our early upbringing. It is through logic and reasoning, critical thinking and a rational consideration for what that magical-being stuff is really all about, that most (atheist-turned-) religious-turned-atheists have shed their acceptance of the supernatural.

[Ladewig]

Not accepting facts doesn't make them go away. We do the world no good if we adopt beliefs that are no more logical or rational than those portrayed by religious folk. The belief that no atheists return to religion later is clearly false.

I accept the fact that some atheists later become theists (of course some of those returning will again turn back to atheism), but I cannot accept the assertion that it is happening on a level anywhere near 33%.

[Lonewulf]

Also, there is no believing or disbelieving "what other atheists believe." Atheism is simply a position of non religiosity, a lack of belief in deities, the default position into which we are all born.
Nah, babies all worship the exact same God their parents do straight out of the womb. The law says so. :D

[Aquila]

Aquila, correlation does not equal causation,
Cello Man: Modern psychological astrologers would agree completely. Astrology is, and never will be an empirical science. The planets, signs, houses etc. are seen as words in a spiritual/psychological language


The same force driving the upsurge in atheism (critical thinking)...

I didn't know that atheism was the same as critical thinking. I don't think everyone would agree with you. There is a blog somewhere in the intro to this forum explains that one doesn't have to be an atheist to think critically.

As for the bad astronomy - as stated earlier, the Tropical Zodiac is completely theoretical and does not correspond to the present positions of the constellations. The positions of the planets are calculated as the distance from the vernal equinox point, which is called 0 degrees Aries.

[Apology]

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to consider Christianity the world's largest and most successful Jewish cult. However, this is not the conventional way. Jews for Jesus believe in the divinity of Christ, and are therefore Christian. "Jewish" can describe an ethnicity or a religion. In the first sense, you can have Jewish atheists, Jewish Muslims, and even Jewish Christians, and J4J are Jewish Christians. In the second sense, J4J are not Jews, only Christians. So are you saying that "Atheists for Jesus" is really a Christian organization because "Jews for Jesus" is really a Christian organization, or are you disagreeing that "Atheists for Jesus" is a Christian organization? I can't really tell which one you're arguing.


Just because some people believe Christ was God (including Mormons, by the way), doesn't mean that everyone who believes Christ's teachings should be followed believes Christ was God. This guy doesn't "believe in Christ" in the same way a Christian does. He doesn't believe in God. He doesn't believe that Christ was God.

When you say "he cannot believe in God, or, by extension, Christ, and still be an atheist," do you mean "or, by extension, the divinity of Christ," or "or, by extension, the teachings of Christ," or "or, by extension, the existence of Christ"? Or something else? I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about Jesus as a prophet of God. He seems to really believe that if the Paulites hadn't come along that Christianity would have been a religion worth following.

What does it mean to say that "he does not believe what other atheists believe"? What do atheists believe? As you should know if you hang around this forum for more than a day or two, atheists have exactly one belief in common: that there is no God. This guy has that belief. So, yes, he does believe what other atheists believe. Now, beyond that, some atheists might believe that Marx has good things to say. Some might follow Rand. Some might follow the Buddha. Some might follow Confucius. And, yes, some might follow the teachings of Jesus. So it comes down to your definitions: if you define a Christian as someone who follows the moral teachings of Christ, then there is no contradiction between Christianity and atheism. This guy is both a Christian and an atheist. I am then somewhat of a Christian and an atheist. If you use the more usual definition, then this guy is not a Christian, so there's no contradiction - he's just an atheist.

I don't know of any other atheists who promote Christ like the Atheists for Jesus guy. The other atheists don't believe Christ was a prophet. If the atheists you know do, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps they should consider calling themselves "Christians" from now on if they feel so strongly about Christ being a prophet.

Did you read the article you linked to? It's not exactly an inspiring story of a return to religious faith. At best, he's waffling at the border between agnosticism and deism. It's probably fair to say that he's no longer an atheist, but even that's not something I can say with confidence based on the article. He's sure not a Christian or anything close to it.
Is there any evidence for the claim that his works are now being removed from circulation? I ask for evidence because I don't consider the claim plausible on its face.
Most importantly, why does it matter? A person's arguments stand on their own, whether that person continues to support them or not. If an atheist was convinced to be an atheist because of Flew's work, that work still stands. If an atheist was an atheist because he decided to just believe whatever Flew believes, well, why do we care about the beliefs of such a ridiculous person?

Did you expect reversion to religion to somehow be more inspiring that conversion to atheism? Nevertheless, Anthony Flew wrote SEVERAL books on atheism. Go ahead and try to find one in circulation now. The allegation that his works are being removed from atheist journals came from the link I posted about him earlier. The writer of that article suggests that his works are being removed because atheists don't want to buy books about atheism written by a theist, and that sounds reasonable to me. I don't know why you would consider that an unbelievable claim. My argument doesn't concern whether Flew is nutty or not. All it concerns is whether or not he was an atheist and whether or not he reverted to theism. Imagine that Richard Dawkins came out and said "After reconsidering, I've decided I was wrong, and I'm actually a Deist." This is the equivalent of what Flew did.

Look, I'm not saying that reversion is a good thing. I'm saying it's a bad thing, and that I can't be sure which atheists will still be atheists in 20 years, and which will be singing in the church choir, because I have watched people make this transition. I understand that many of you can't bear to hear a bad word said about Atheism. However, atheists are just people; there are good and bad among every bunch. For some of you to assert that none of the atheists that they know, and none of the atheists on JREF, would ever switch back to religion, is just preposterous. If they did, do you think they would come here and post about it? Before you answer, reconsider this post:

I can't imagine any atheist JREF members converting. I hear about it, but from less than trustworthy people. I don't see it at all. Maybe in the past, when science couldn't explain things so well--but a JREF member-- these people are pretty aware of the ways people (including themselves) can be fooled. I think JREF is more likely to move theists towards the light of atheism (as has been demonstrated by numerous posters here)-- I can't see the reverse happening.


I find myself arguing on this website with Atheists who seem to believe that Atheism can do no wrong. It concerns me deeply because with this attitude, all it would take is one bad atheist to discredit the whole group. If that were to happen, I'm sure that you would see a mass exodus away from atheism. My interest is to keep atheists from forming preposterous ideas that are bad as those held by theists. After a certain number of atheists have reverted to religion, I'm still going to be agnostic and trying to defend atheism, just like I was before the surge in atheism that started around 2003. All I ask is that some of the newer atheists make my defense of atheism a little easier by not taking on some of these ideas.

[slingblade]

Cello Man:


I didn't know that atheism was the same as critical thinking. I don't think everyone would agree with you. There is a blog somewhere in the intro to this forum explains that one doesn't have to be an atheist to think critically.

Except, that's not what was said. You're making another strawman.

If one said the driving force behind sex was passion, it would not then mean that sex = passion. I can have passion for many non-sexual things. I can have sex without passion.

The driving force behind my car is the combustion engine, but the engine is not the car.

[ponderingturtle]

Has anybody else noticed the recent surge in messed up youth like Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc.

I wonder if that former mouseketeer Annette Funicello of the 50's ever considered shaving her head or going after a reporter with an umbrella like the former mouseketeer Britney Spears.

Yep, back in the good old days when starlets knew that rape was something to be expected at studio parties.

[Lonewulf]

Cello Man: Modern psychological astrologers would agree completely. Astrology is, and never will be an empirical science. The planets, signs, houses etc. are seen as words in a spiritual/psychological language
In other words, it's unreliable and unfalsifiable.

There is nothing to astrology, and there never will be.

I didn't know that atheism was the same as critical thinking.
A) He didn't say that atheism "was" critical thinking.

B) Critical Thinking is more apt to lead to atheism than it is to theism.

I don't think everyone would agree with you.
Not many would agree with the theory of evolution. That doesn't change anything that actually happened, though.

There is a blog somewhere in the intro to this forum explains that one doesn't have to be an atheist to think critically.
From my POV, it's selective critical thinking. You're willing to think critically as to other subjects, but not as to theism.

I just don't see how someone employing skepticism to any religious claim can believe in that claim. I can see, maybe, deism, but that's a totally different horse from the majority ruling of christianity, islam, and catholocism.

[linusrichard]

So are you saying that "Atheists for Jesus" is really a Christian organization because "Jews for Jesus" is really a Christian organization, or are you disagreeing that "Atheists for Jesus" is a Christian organization? I can't really tell which one you're arguing.
I'm not saying A4J is a Christian organization because J4J is a Christian organization. How would that make sense? A4J is not a Christian organization in the usual sense of the word, because, generally, "Christian" indicates a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which A4J does not have. J4J is a Christian organization, because J4J does believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now, if you want to change the definitions that's fine, and then we can say that A4J is a Christian organization under a different definition of "Christian," but that's a definition of "Christian" that doesn't conflict with atheism. In no sense is it true that A4J is not an atheist organization.
I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about Jesus as a prophet of God. He seems to really believe that if the Paulites hadn't come along that Christianity would have been a religion worth following.
I don't think so:
I do not believe that any deity is probable, nor do I believe that any deity that I have ever heard of is possible. . . . I do not mean to imply in any way that I have converted to Christianity or that I now believe Jesus to be a god.
This guy is an atheist, same as me, same as a lot of people around here. However, like most people, including atheists, he reads stuff, and agrees with some of it and thinks it's worth following. But where one person might follow Rand, and another Rawls, and another Marx, and another Aristotle, he follows Christ. No belief in Christ's divinity, any more than Marxists or Nietzscheans believe in the divinity of those men, just agreement with his teachings. That's all.
I don't know of any other atheists who promote Christ like the Atheists for Jesus guy. The other atheists don't believe Christ was a prophet. If the atheists you know do, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps they should consider calling themselves "Christians" from now on if they feel so strongly about Christ being a prophet.
I didn't see where the A4J guy said that he believed Christ was a prophet. If he did, he sure didn't mean it in the usual sense, since a prophet generally implies a God, and this guy doesn't believe in God.
Did you expect reversion to religion to somehow be more inspiring that conversion to atheism? Nevertheless, Anthony Flew wrote SEVERAL books on atheism. Go ahead and try to find one in circulation now.
These look available. (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=antony+flew&z=y)
The allegation that his works are being removed from atheist journals came from the link I posted about him earlier. The writer of that article suggests that his works are being removed because atheists don't want to buy books about atheism written by a theist, and that sounds reasonable to me. I don't know why you would consider that an unbelievable claim. My argument doesn't concern whether Flew is nutty or not. All it concerns is whether or not he was an atheist and whether or not he reverted to theism. Imagine that Richard Dawkins came out and said "After reconsidering, I've decided I was wrong, and I'm actually a Deist." This is the equivalent of what Flew did.
All right. I don't see the big deal. If someone's atheism hinges on what Antony Flew or Richard Dawkins happens to believe today, he's as irrational as any theist. Whatever Flew and Dawkins said now stands on its own, to be judged right or wrong on its own merits. Flew and Dawkins can say that they don't believe it anymore, but that should carry as much weight as if you or I say we do or don't believe it.

Look, I'm not saying that reversion is a good thing. I'm saying it's a bad thing, and that I can't be sure which atheists will still be atheists in 20 years, and which will be singing in the church choir, because I have watched people make this transition. I understand that many of you can't bear to hear a bad word said about Atheism. However, atheists are just people; there are good and bad among every bunch. For some of you to assert that none of the atheists that they know, and none of the atheists on JREF, would ever switch back to religion, is just preposterous. If they did, do you think they would come here and post about it? Before you answer, reconsider this post:
I can't imagine any atheist JREF members converting. I hear about it, but from less than trustworthy people. I don't see it at all. Maybe in the past, when science couldn't explain things so well--but a JREF member-- these people are pretty aware of the ways people (including themselves) can be fooled. I think JREF is more likely to move theists towards the light of atheism (as has been demonstrated by numerous posters here)-- I can't see the reverse happening.
I find myself arguing on this website with Atheists who seem to believe that Atheism can do no wrong. It concerns me deeply because with this attitude, all it would take is one bad atheist to discredit the whole group. If that were to happen, I'm sure that you would see a mass exodus away from atheism. My interest is to keep atheists from forming preposterous ideas that are bad as those held by theists. After a certain number of atheists have reverted to religion, I'm still going to be agnostic and trying to defend atheism, just like I was before the surge in atheism that started around 2003. All I ask is that some of the newer atheists make my defense of atheism a little easier by not taking on some of these ideas.

Thank you for this, it gives some perspective on your point of view. I agree that it doesn't make sense to suggest that atheists won't switch to religion. I guess it's just hard for me to imagine a "mass exodus" of atheists based on the conversion of one prominent atheist, just because that would be so stupid. But I think that's probably foolishness on my part - there's nothing about humans that is too stupid to be true. I'm still not really sure why it matters.

[Aquila]

OK, here's the actual quote from Cello Man:

[B] The same force driving the upsurge in atheism (critical thinking) is also revealing that psuedosciences like astrology...

If Cello Man meant that critical thinking is the force driving the upsurge in atheism, then perhaps he should have stated it as follows:

"The same force (critical thinking) driving the upsurge in atheism is also revealing that pseudosciences like astrology..."

Just goes to show that grammar changes meaning, as discussed in another thread on the forum (education I think).

[Apology]

I agree that it doesn't make sense to suggest that atheists won't switch to religion. I guess it's just hard for me to imagine a "mass exodus" of atheists based on the conversion of one prominent atheist, just because that would be so stupid. But I think that's probably foolishness on my part - there's nothing about humans that is too stupid to be true. I'm still not really sure why it matters.

I do agree with you that someone who would abandon atheism just because a prominent atheist like Flew or Dawkins did probably wasn't that committed to atheism in the first place.

The reason why I think it matters is that I believe that atheism is sort of a fad right now. Like any fad, it's likely to pass. There will still be atheists, as there was before the upsurge in 2003. They will have to deal with the anti-atheist backlash that comes after the fad passes.

In the 60's and 70's, communes and ashrams were all the rage. Now there are few of them left, and the people who lived in them during that time period consider their beliefs from that period to be silly and "just a phase" they were going through. I dread the idea that new atheists would behave similarly. I don't have any reason to believe that some of them won't. Many people who are deeply committed to causes in their youth abandon them once they become embroiled in career, family, and daily life. All I can really do about it is point out the spots where people seem to be straying off the path of unbelief towards creating new beliefs. Atheists are not immune to adopting new crazy beliefs that are as bad as theism was.

All in all, atheists are much more likely to fall for woo beliefs such as astrology or psychic power than revert to religion, since these are not clearly "God-related". I can't tell you how many hardcore pre-2003 atheists I know that vehemently insist that there is no God but manage to believe that having their moon in the seventh house affects their luck somehow. Even scarier is the whole magic juice thing, which seems to appeal to atheists more than other sorts of woo. I believe it's the pseudo-scientific literature that attracts them. There is plenty of legitimate evidence that antioxidants can help prevent cancer, but what is not clear is what antioxidants are actually in these juices, and whether or not they can affect one's overall feeling of health as the testimonials claim they do.

The important thing that I would like to express here is that ALL atheists need to be aware that sometimes atheists do abandon atheism, and that atheism is not some sort of inoculation against irrational beliefs.

[Achán hiNidráne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7053157.stm

Interesting article on the recent surge of popularity in Atheism.


Don't worry, knowing the American people like I do, the believers will rally and there will be a "backlash" against the godless heathens and we atheists will be lower on the national pariah list than we were before.

It's only a matter of time.

[Cello Man]

Cello Man: Modern psychological astrologers would agree completely. Astrology is, and never will be an empirical science.

Yet it makes testable predictions, which opens it to real scientific inquiry. The predictions are shown to be either dead wrong or they are so generalized that they're worthless.

First you say it's not a science, but you claim that some unknown forces of the heavens are affecting us. If these forces cannot be directly observed or indirectly measured, how can you claim that they're actually there, or for that matter, what effect they have on us?

The planets, signs, houses etc. are seen as words in a spiritual/psychological language

Firstly, there is no direct or indirect evidence of the existence of anything that may be called "spiritual" by accepted definitions of the word. And psychological? Are astrologers required to have degrees in psychology now? I'm not a surgeon, so I don't say that I play music in an aural/surgical capacity.

As for the bad astronomy - as stated earlier, the Tropical Zodiac is completely theoretical.

Show me any Zodiac that is not completely theoretical, then provide evidence for the assertion that it is an accurate model for the function of our universe. Did you even read the Bad Astronomy link? All of it? If so, can you refute any of the points made in the article?

...then perhaps he should have stated it as follows: "The same force (critical thinking) driving the upsurge in atheism is also revealing that pseudosciences like astrology..."

Switching the word order like that doesn't really change much. Read slingblade's post again and things might be clearer.

[Apology]

Don't worry, knowing the American people like I do, the believers will rally and there will be a "backlash" against the godless heathens and we atheists will be lower on the national pariah list than we were before.

It's only a matter of time.

I believe that this is true, and I'm hoping that we won't give them any additional ammunition to use against us during the backlash from our behavior right now, during the popularity surge. Seriously, if something happened to Dawkins (any sort of scandal will do) then modern atheism would be in big big trouble. If Dawkins was caught say, sleeping with someone else's wife, then the backlash would be on immediately.

[Marquis de Carabas]

"The same force (critical thinking) driving the upsurge in atheism is also revealing that pseudosciences like astrology..."

Just goes to show that grammar changes meaning, as discussed in another thread on the forum (education I think).
There is nothing wrong with Cello Man's grammar. His parenthetical aside was an apposition, a noun or noun phrase which clarifies or defines the noun or noun phrase which precedes it. His apposition either applies to the subject (The same force driving the upsurge in atheism) entire or simply to the noun immediately to its left (atheism)*.

In cases where wording seems ambiguous, context is the place to check. Since we are dealing with an apposition, we may use it to stand in turn for our candidate interpretations and see which makes sense in light of the discussion at hand:

Crtical thinking is also revealing that psuedosciences like astrology are nonsense.

or

The same force driving the upsurge in critical thinking is also revealing that psuedosciences like astrology are nonsense.

Since this thread is about an upsurge in atheism, and no prior reference to an upsurge in critical thinking was present, context demands that his apposition applies to force and not to atheism.

*ETA: How fortunate. I happened to type a perfect example. Surely my atheism in parentheses here refers to the noun phrase noun immediately to its left, not merely to the noun left.

[PenguinWarrior]

I do agree with you that someone who would abandon atheism just because a prominent atheist like Flew or Dawkins did probably wasn't that committed to atheism in the first place.

The reason why I think it matters is that I believe that atheism is sort of a fad right now. Like any fad, it's likely to pass. There will still be atheists, as there was before the upsurge in 2003. They will have to deal with the anti-atheist backlash that comes after the fad passes.

I don't agree with this. The rise in rates of disbelief in the developed world has been, I believe, a slow but continuous process that has been occuring for decades, albeit faster in some places (e.g. Scandinavia) and slower in others (e.g. the USA) (for various reasons that I don't feel like getting into). I question whether there has been any particular rise in non-believer numbers since 2003. What HAS happened recently is a lot of discussion of atheism and indeed vocal extolling of its virtues, which seems to have caught the public imagination to a larger extent that it ever has previously, particularly evident in the bestseller charts. This almost certainly is a fad, that will fade into the background and everyone concerned will move on. Believers will wander off still believing, atheists disbelieving and the JREF forums will concentrate more on alien abductions or fairies or magnetic healing or something. I don't see a massive backlash against atheism (in fact discussion about ANNNNNNNGRY atheists -grrr - will reduce back down to background levels) and I don't see a majority of young atheists dropping off their disbeliefs in the same place as their rubix cubes, hula hoops or Tickle Me Elmos, as their beliefs are just not fads in the same way as those things were. Meanwhile rates of disbelief will continue to slowly rise as they have been doing (though immigration makes the picture slightly more complicated, the general rates of belief continue to decline).



In the 60's and 70's, communes and ashrams were all the rage. Now there are few of them left, and the people who lived in them during that time period consider their beliefs from that period to be silly and "just a phase" they were going through. I dread the idea that new atheists would behave similarly. I don't have any reason to believe that some of them won't. Many people who are deeply committed to causes in their youth abandon them once they become embroiled in career, family, and daily life. All I can really do about it is point out the spots where people seem to be straying off the path of unbelief towards creating new beliefs. Atheists are not immune to adopting new crazy beliefs that are as bad as theism was.

All in all, atheists are much more likely to fall for woo beliefs such as astrology or psychic power than revert to religion, since these are not clearly "God-related". I can't tell you how many hardcore pre-2003 atheists I know that vehemently insist that there is no God but manage to believe that having their moon in the seventh house affects their luck somehow. Even scarier is the whole magic juice thing, which seems to appeal to atheists more than other sorts of woo. I believe it's the pseudo-scientific literature that attracts them. There is plenty of legitimate evidence that antioxidants can help prevent cancer, but what is not clear is what antioxidants are actually in these juices, and whether or not they can affect one's overall feeling of health as the testimonials claim they do.

The important thing that I would like to express here is that ALL atheists need to be aware that sometimes atheists do abandon atheism, and that atheism is not some sort of inoculation against irrational beliefs.

This is mostly right, I think. Nobody thinks that no atheist ever (re)converts to theism. Nobody even thinks that no rationalist, scientific, critical thinking atheist ever does. People just doubt it happens at the rate of 33%, or that the bottom is going to drop out of the atheist market, and I think these are reasonable doubts.

Oh, and somebody mentioned earlier about possible misreporting of atheist numbers due to telling the interviewer what he/she wants to hear. I read a study that showed this was true, even in the relatively (compared to the US) secular Britain, an extra 8% (IIRC) atheists were found in online surveys compared to face to face or phone. Unfortunately I can't find the report, even though I was fairly sure it was on www.pollingreport.co.uk . Darn it.

[Apology]

This is mostly right, I think. Nobody thinks that no atheist ever (re)converts to theism. Nobody even thinks that no rationalist, scientific, critical thinking atheist ever does.


From this very thread:

I can't imagine any atheist JREF members converting. I hear about it, but from less than trustworthy people. I don't see it at all. Maybe in the past, when science couldn't explain things so well--but a JREF member-- these people are pretty aware of the ways people (including themselves) can be fooled. I think JREF is more likely to move theists towards the light of atheism (as has been demonstrated by numerous posters here)-- I can't see the reverse happening.

Of course I don't know whether there will be a backlash or not, I just suspect that there will be. Everybody loved disco in the seventies, everyone hated it in the 80's, and it resurged to popularity again after 2000. Religion goes through periods of popularity and then wanes again (please do not forget the whole "family values" platform a few presidential elections ago). I don't see any reason why atheism should be exempt from the cycles that other fads and popular beliefs go through. Of course you're free to disagree. It's highly possible that everyone might walk away from the whole debate quietly. I just don't think they will.

[Suggestologist]

Atheism cannot resort to the same tactics that theists use and expect to succeed. If it didn't work for theists back then, what makes us think that it will work for us now?

It seems to have worked pretty well for them. So why shouldn't we use some of the same tactics? You shouldn't object to tactics just because the other side is using them.

[joobz]

From this very thread:


Of course I don't know whether there will be a backlash or not, I just suspect that there will be. Everybody loved disco in the seventies, everyone hated it in the 80's, and it resurged to popularity again after 2000. Religion goes through periods of popularity and then wanes again (please do not forget the whole "family values" platform a few presidential elections ago). I don't see any reason why atheism should be exempt from the cycles that other fads and popular beliefs go through. Of course you're free to disagree. It's highly possible that everyone might walk away from the whole debate quietly. I just don't think they will.
Interesting to relate a philosophy of life to butterfly collars. If people are atheist because they think it's cool, then I think you are right.


But I do not think that is the important point. The important point is that the mainstream america is aware that there are atheists in society and they are not the sources of all evil, but rather quite productive members.
Would you claim that the surgence of gay popularity in american culture has generated any "backlash?" Are there more gay bashers now as a result?

[Apology]

Interesting to relate a philosophy of life to butterfly collars. If people are atheist because they think it's cool, then I think you are right.


But I do not think that is the important point. The important point is that the mainstream america is aware that there are atheists in society and they are not the sources of all evil, but rather quite productive members.
Would you claim that the surgence of gay popularity in american culture has generated any "backlash?" Are there more gay bashers now as a result?

Man, the gay thing opens up a whole ugly can of worms that I don't really want to get into. First we have to argue whether or not being gay is a choice like being religious. Then we have to prove that there has really been a "surge" of gay popularity, or if gays are simply more vocal now due to favorable changes in the law. Next you have to consider if the whole gay marriage issue, with some states legislating specifically against gay marriage, constitutes a "backlash". Then you have to seperate homosexuality from bisexuality and determine if there's been a surge or backlash towards bisexuality.

None of these issues are anything that I care to take a stand on. I don't really know if there are more gay bashers or not, but I do know that there are stricter laws to punish them.

As for the comparison between disco and atheism, disco was clearly a fad, and was definitely reviled later by the same people who participated in the fad. No, disco is not really important in the scheme of things; it's just a good example. I definitely think there are some atheists who are atheists because they just think it's cool. The good news is that, just like disco, even if there is a backlash against atheism in the future, it doesn't mean that atheism will disappear entirely. I'm sure atheism has much more staying power than disco could ever have hoped to have.

[Marquis de Carabas]

First we have to argue whether or not being gay is a choice like being religious.
That's second, right after we finish the debate about whether being religious is a choice. I certainly did not choose to be an atheist. I believe what I believe.

If I could choose my beliefs, I would have picked Cleonism.

[CapelDodger]

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to consider Christianity the world's largest and most successful Jewish cult.

That really doesn't work for me. If it has a Trinity and transubstantion, it ain't Jewish. There's far more of Greece and Egypt in Christianity. Jesus (and the Wise Men) is just there to bring some ancient Eastern gravitas into the mix.

Christianity is a whole new thing; a hierarchical religion modelled on the Empire it was devised in, with Christian dogma taking the role of Imperial Law.

Judaism and Christianity are fascinating subjects of study, but they shouldn't be tangled-up too much. Judaism and Islam have a great deal more in common with each other.

When you look into the roots and the cultural modelling of religions atheism becomes (to my mind) unavoidable. I've always been an atheist, but there's a heck of a lot of confirmation out there :).

[Apology]

That's second, right after we finish the debate about whether being religious is a choice. I certainly did not choose to be an atheist. I believe what I believe.

If I could choose my beliefs, I would have picked Cleonism.

That's a very good point. It seemed to me that religion is a choice because one can be forced to join a particular religion in childhood and go on and choose to be a member of a different religion or an atheist. I never considered the concept that an end-belief could be involuntary. My bad.

[Glen.Nogami]

Man, the gay thing opens up a whole ugly can of worms that I don't really want to get into. First we have to argue whether or not being gay is a choice like being religious. Then we have to prove that there has really been a "surge" of gay popularity, or if gays are simply more vocal now due to favorable changes in the law. Next you have to consider if the whole gay marriage issue, with some states legislating specifically against gay marriage, constitutes a "backlash". Then you have to seperate homosexuality from bisexuality and determine if there's been a surge or backlash towards bisexuality.

None of these issues are anything that I care to take a stand on. I don't really know if there are more gay bashers or not, but I do know that there are stricter laws to punish them.

As for the comparison between disco and atheism, disco was clearly a fad, and was definitely reviled later by the same people who participated in the fad. No, disco is not really important in the scheme of things; it's just a good example. I definitely think there are some atheists who are atheists because they just think it's cool. The good news is that, just like disco, even if there is a backlash against atheism in the future, it doesn't mean that atheism will disappear entirely. I'm sure atheism has much more staying power than disco could ever have hoped to have.

Wrong.

Disco is eternal :D

[joobz]

Man, the gay thing opens up a whole ugly can of worms that I don't really want to get into. First we have to argue whether or not being gay is a choice like being religious.
It's not. but people's reactions to gays are.
Then we have to prove that there has really been a "surge" of gay popularity, or if gays are simply more vocal now due to favorable changes in the law.
Considering the popularity of shows like
Ellen, Will and grace, Queer eye (And all copies), the existence of the LOGO network, the fact that people can come out with much less hostility than before. I would say there has been a definite increase in gay acceptance/popularity in this country.

Next you have to consider if the whole gay marriage issue, with some states legislating specifically against gay marriage, constitutes a "backlash".
Could be. This is more of the Fundieization of america that I think the atheist surge is a response to.
Anyway, I'm not saying everything is hunky dory with gay rights, but we are on the right track.

Then you have to seperate homosexuality from bisexuality and determine if there's been a surge or backlash towards bisexuality.
This makes no sense.

None of these issues are anything that I care to take a stand on. I don't really know if there are more gay bashers or not, but I do know that there are stricter laws to punish them.I'm sure you can find areas still where gay bashing is en vouge. A lot like racism. But these areas will become fewer and farther between.

As for the comparison between disco and atheism, disco was clearly a fad, and was definitely reviled later by the same people who participated in the fad. No, disco is not really important in the scheme of things; it's just a good example. I definitely think there are some atheists who are atheists because they just think it's cool. The good news is that, just like disco, even if there is a backlash against atheism in the future, it doesn't mean that atheism will disappear entirely. I'm sure atheism has much more staying power than disco could ever have hoped to have.

it's hard to draw to tight of comparisons becuase of the reasons for atheism popularity increase and Disco.

Disco was popular becuase
1.) Dance music
2.) Sex
3.) Cocaine
in the early 80s
1.) People became bored with the music
2.) AIDS fear stopped free love
3.) "Cocaine is a hell of a drug"-Rick James
There were multiple things that killed disco, most of which was excess based.

On the other hand, Atheism is gaining popularity because
1.) Fundie backlash
2.) Hard to not notice similarities between extreme christianity and extreme islamists.
3.) Release of multiple texts on the subject of atheism and the fears of religion.
4.) Multicultural society breeds religious comparisons and stimulates critical thought on religion

none of these are excess driven. Indeed, they are responses to excesses of theist approaches. If anything, Atheism is Thiesm's Punk rock.

[Glen.Nogami]

That's a very good point. It seemed to me that religion is a choice because one can be forced to join a particular religion in childhood and go on and choose to be a member of a different religion or an atheist. I never considered the concept that an end-belief could be involuntary. My bad.

But when you're a child, you don't choose to have that religion into which you're inducted. You're just put into it, taught about it, and end up believing it, at least for a while. You can certainly change beliefs, but I think something there has to be voluntary. Too many people putter along their entire lives believing in a god for atheism to be something that just comes along and happens.

MdC, how precisely did you come to believe what you do? I distinctly recall, myself, deciding one day "Yeah, this is basically a load of crap" and then not believing in it, though there was obviously a transition period. However, throughout that period, I had to continuously choose to keep doubting, go against the default brain setting, all of that. I would argue that that makes my current atheism a choice. Of course, yours could be divinely inspired, revealed atheism, in which case there's nothing to argue about.

[Apology]

Wrong.

Disco is eternal :D

LOL! It does seem to be "Staying Alive"

Oh gosh, someone take away my keyboard before I make more bad puns :blush:

[Apology]

It seems to have worked pretty well for them. So why shouldn't we use some of the same tactics? You shouldn't object to tactics just because the other side is using them.

Did you believe the theists when they claimed Einstein was a theist? I didn't. The tactic didn't work.

Do you believe that two wrongs can make a right? I don't. We shouldn't use our own incorrect tactic to counteract a theist's incorrect tactic.

Atheism is still a minority position. If we want to convince the majority in the US (Christians) we will have to show that atheism is better than Christianity. We can't do that through the use of underhanded tactics. It's not fair that we have to be, not just equal to, but better than Christians, but unfortunately that's the way of the world. Business women, gays, and racial minorities face this type of unfairness all the time. That's what happens when you're going up against any type of majority. To change their minds, you must convince them that your way is better. If there is any hint of immorality or less-than-ethical tactics on the part of atheists, then theists will use it to their best advantage as a weapon to discredit atheism as a whole.

[CapelDodger]

Of course I don't know whether there will be a backlash or not, I just suspect that there will be. Everybody loved disco in the seventies, everyone hated it in the 80's, and it resurged to popularity again after 2000. Religion goes through periods of popularity and then wanes again (please do not forget the whole "family values" platform a few presidential elections ago). I don't see any reason why atheism should be exempt from the cycles that other fads and popular beliefs go through. Of course you're free to disagree. It's highly possible that everyone might walk away from the whole debate quietly. I just don't think they will.

Youth fads work to a decadal beat, since youth is sadly fleeting, but middle-age drags on and I think religion works to that sort of beat. If you consider the boomer generations in the US, they grew up through a general sense of religion as represented by Martin Luther King and The Man as a soulless suit trading megadeaths. Religion came with a warm fuzzy glow.

The more recent generations have been presented with religion as mostly hate-speech and The Man as sucking up to it. I reckon that longer wave has turned. As the boomers pass from middle to post-middle age their concerns willl become more practical, more of this world. And from what I've observed the coming generations are already more like that. They see troubled times a-comin', and they expect sharp elbows to be more useful than piety.

That's how I see it, maybe I'm being optimistic. One thing I'm sure of is that religion is earning itself a bad name pretty much everywhere you find it. Even Hinduism.

[Marquis de Carabas]

We're getting far afield from the topic, but..


MdC, how precisely did you come to believe what you do?
[shrug] Beats me. The evidence thus far presented to me has on balance returned a "no" for belief in god.

I simply don't see what choice has to do with belief, as regards gods or otherwise. I believe the Stars are an NHL hockey team based in Dallas, Texas. I believe this for various reasons, all inconsequential at the moment. The point is I cannot choose to believe they are based elsewhere, or that they are a basketball team, or that they belong to a minor league such as the ECHL. I could say I believe those things. But I can't believe them.

God is no different. The reasons I disbelieve are irrelevant. I can't choose to believe; at best, I could pretend.

I distinctly recall, myself, deciding one day "Yeah, this is basically a load of crap" and then not believing in it, though there was obviously a transition period.
I distinctly recall realising one day it was all bollocks (yes, after a transition period). I don't remember deciding a thing.

However, throughout that period, I had to continuously choose to keep doubting, go against the default brain setting, all of that.
How do you choose to doubt? Or continue doubting? I doubted when things seemed to me not to add up. I did not choose to think things did not add up. They just did not (or I perceived it as so). Upon further investigation and contemplation, they still did not seem to.

I suppose the closest thing to a choice in the whole matter was choosing to further investigate and think about it. I have my doubts that that was a choice either, but I'll grant it, for sake of not starting a free will conversation. Even so, that is not choosing atheism, as I did not know beforehand where my questions would lead (if I did, why bother asking them?).

I would argue that that makes my current atheism a choice. Of course, yours could be divinely inspired, revealed atheism, in which case there's nothing to argue about.
"Divinely inspired atheism" has a nice ring to it. I may steal that.

[CapelDodger]

Did you believe the theists when they claimed Einstein was a theist? I didn't. The tactic didn't work.

But you're clearly incorrigible, so it was hardly a fair test.

Do you believe that two wrongs can make a right? I don't.

Two wrongs make a fight. One wrong is a provocation.

We shouldn't use our own incorrect tactic to counteract a theist's incorrect tactic.

No reason why we shouldn't use the same tactic to mess with them. If they call it as unfair, you nail them for prior use. If they don't realise it's invalid you can wield it better than them and reduce them to gibbering. It plays well to an audience, and there's some mean pleasure in it as well.

Atheism is still a minority position. If we want to convince the majority in the US (Christians) we will have to show that atheism is better than Christianity.

Another option is present religion as worse. In the end, most people aren't going to become explicitly atheist. Most people don't care that much. People like us, running over this ground, are a tiny minority. Convincing a majority is no sensible aim, but we can undermine the forces of conviction on the other side. Don't focus on attraction to atheism, but on repulsion from religion. A fair number of the saved will drift across to provide fresh blood and venom.

[Kiosk]

If Dawkins was caught say, sleeping with someone else's wife

Unlikely. Have you seen Lalla Ward?

somebody mentioned earlier about possible misreporting of atheist numbers due to telling the interviewer what he/she wants to hear. I read a study that showed this was true, even in the relatively (compared to the US) secular Britain, an extra 8% (IIRC) atheists were found in online surveys compared to face to face or phone.

Something else to remember is that we have a national church, and - until it became acceptable not to christen your children - almost everyone from an atheist or agnostic family was baptised into it. Many of us attended schools called things like "St Ann's Church of England Primary School", where prayers and hymns were everyday routine. In England at least (the situation is different in other parts of Britain), when asked "which religion are you?", many non-believers would reply "Church of England", simply because they're so used to putting it on forms, etc. According to the last census, I'm a member of the Church Of England, because I vaguely assumed that the question was intended to gather statistics on baptism or something. Having bothered to think it through, I'll be happy to put "N/A" in that space next time, but plenty of others will carry on regardless. When asked "do you believe in God - specifically, the God of the Bible?", probably the vast majority of British people below a certain (advanced) age would answer no - and this is rarely reflected in statistics because the question is rarely phrased that way.

Britain is very much apatheist, rather than atheist. There's near-unanimous contempt for Ned Flanders types (try being a bible-basher in a British school / pub / soccer ground, and it won't just be the Bible that gets bashed), but the flipside of this is that hardcore atheists are widely seen as cranks too. Since few people take the church seriously, it's generally considered a harmless comfort for dotty old ladies, and "ranting" atheists come over as shooters of fish in a barrel, or the types who would take pleasure in telling a kid there's no Santa Claus (which is why Dawkins and Hitchens have more fun, and make more money, in America). Ever read that Douglas Adams interview with American Atheists, where he explains that in Britain caring too much, pro or anti religion, is basically seen as rather bad manners? Our lack of religiosity is based not on conviction, but on lack of conviction.

Thing is, in a society that still pays the church lip service, there can be a slight stigma attached to being "unspiritual" (especially with the amount of woo doing the rounds here in Europe). Many people would reply to the God question with some cliche like "I think I believe in God, but not as a man in the sky with a white beard" - which is just woolly wishful thinking rather a considered Deist stance, but certainly isn't atheism. Agnosticism with a twist, perhaps.

The point is, it's not religion. People with this "belief" are indistinguishable from atheists in every respect, until you ask them the question. They believe in science and reason. They couldn't give a flying one about abortion or stem cell research. They don't spend any time, y'know, worshiping anything. They just have a vague desire to seem "spiritual", or else their fear of death is slightly comforted by vague imaginings of some kind of God. I suspect that the current "boom" in atheism in America is more to do with battle lines being drawn and, rather than millions of Christians converting, you're seeing people like this stopping to question their beliefs, reacting against fundamentalism, and deciding to take an openly atheist stand (which in America, really counts for something). Here, they just bumble along, unthreatened, unquestioning. But call them "religious" and they'd laugh in your face.

Of course, it's possible you're going to pull out the study mentioned above, and say "no look, actually 83% of British people say 'yes, I absolutely believe in God'" or whatever. I'm only going on anecdotal experience here. But believe me, a sizeable chunk of "Christian" responders to surveys and studies will be about as devout as Marilyn Manson compared to their American counterparts. It's harder than you might think to find God-botherers in this country. Disdain for outspoken Christianity might discourage some true believers from speaking out in public, I suppose, but step into a church over here on a Sunday morning and I assure you, you'll have plenty of elbow room.

Apologies for the slight tangent.

[Aquila]

Yet it makes testable predictions, which opens it to real scientific inquiry. The predictions are shown to be either dead wrong or they are so generalized that they're worthless.

I don't know which investigations you have reviewed, but the most famous so far is Michel Gauquelin's statistical analysis of professions. Gauquelin found a statistically significant correlation between the positions of the planets at birth and a person's later profession. He divided up the circle of the Zodiac into "power zones" where certain planets correlated with certain professions more often than would be expected. Admittedly, there are many criticisms of this experiment, even among astrologers, like sample size, gender, race and economic level possible biasses, and the fact that when the experiment was performed women did not have the access to education and certain professions that they do now, but it was, however, the beginning of a movement to try to bring the study of astrology accessible to scientific investigation.

If you are talking about predictions made by Sun-sign astrologers in tabloid newspapers, then it is not surprising that these are often completely irrelevant. I personally do not read any astrological prediction unless it explains the reasoning behind that particular prediction, for example if an astrologer were to look at my complete birth chart, drawn up from my exact time and place of birth, and say something like "Jupiter is in your 9th house now" therefore da da da da da etc., I would be more likely to listen than if the information were given with no reasoning behind it. Personally I do not believe in predictive astrology and see the art more as a "spiritual weather map". The astrologer can advise about rain, but we have the free will to avoid getting wet by taking an umbrella.

First you say it's not a science, but you claim that some unknown forces of the heavens are affecting us. If these forces cannot be directly observed or indirectly measured, how can you claim that they're actually there, or for that matter, what effect they have on us?

I never said that some unknown forces were affecting us. I said that certain events on earth (in this case the rise in atheism) were correlated with positions and transits of the planets in certain signs (in this case Uranus in Pisces). A lot of the "predictive" power of astrology relies on observation of the planets though history. We have historical records for the past 2000 years or longer and we have ephemerides for the planets' positions. Correlating events with planetary positions enables astrologers to make predictions about social and political trends for the future. No one is claiming that this is a science, although it does have some similarities with science.

Firstly, there is no direct or indirect evidence of the existence of anything that may be called "spiritual" by accepted definitions of the word. And psychological? Are astrologers required to have degrees in psychology now? I'm not a surgeon, so I don't say that I play music in an aural/surgical capacity.

There is no scientific evidence of the existence of depression either, and yet doctors and psychiatrists dole out billions of dollars worth of mood altering pharmaceutical medication based solely on subjective reports by patients.

Astrologers are not required to have degrees in psychology but some do. Jungian therapist and author Liz Greene is an example. If you are so inclined, there are many articles by her at http://www.astro.com


Show me any Zodiac that is not completely theoretical, then provide evidence for the assertion that it is an accurate model for the function of our universe. Did you even read the Bad Astronomy link? All of it? If so, can you refute any of the points made in the article?

You are right - they are all theoretical, but the Tropical Zodiac is perhaps more theoretical than the circle of stick-figure shapes that the sun, moon and planets seem to travel through (the constellations). Once again, I did not say, and will not say, that there is any evidence for the assertion that it is an accurate model for the function of our universe. As a critical thinker, I can only point out the philosophy of astrology as a possible explanation of things seen and unseen.

I must admit that I did not read all of the Bad Astronomy link. I do however remember seeing a TV program with Bill Nye in which he was trying to say that astrology was bunk because astrologers claim that the planets are in the wrong signs, because of precession. I really respect Bill Nye and thank him for helping to educate my kids in science, but I do think that he should have done his research before making assertions like this. Most American astrologers use the Tropical Zodiac, which we know is about a sign out of alignment with the constellations as they now appear from earth. Vedic (Indian) and Sidereal astrologers use a Zodiac which is nearer to the actual constellations.

[Glen.Nogami]

We're getting far afield from the topic, but..


[shrug] Beats me. The evidence thus far presented to me has on balance returned a "no" for belief in god.

I simply don't see what choice has to do with belief, as regards gods or otherwise. I believe the Stars are an NHL hockey team based in Dallas, Texas. I believe this for various reasons, all inconsequential at the moment. The point is I cannot choose to believe they are based elsewhere, or that they are a basketball team, or that they belong to a minor league such as the ECHL. I could say I believe those things. But I can't believe them.

That's a good point. I guess I viewed going against what appears to be humanity's default setting (Believe whatever crap is fed to you) to need to imply a choice, but I suppose it can (and indeed does) happen without any decisions being made.

Oh, by the way, do people still play hockey in the United States?

I suppose the closest thing to a choice in the whole matter was choosing to further investigate and think about it. I have my doubts that that was a choice either, but I'll grant it, for sake of not starting a free will conversation. Even so, that is not choosing atheism, as I did not know beforehand where my questions would lead (if I did, why bother asking them?).

Oh, pshaw. If you won't, I will.

Sir, (a+b^n)/n=X, therefore, the universe is deterministic.

Respond!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Oh, by the way, do people still play hockey in the United States?
I choose to believe so. :D



Oh, pshaw. If you won't, I will.

Sir, (a+b^n)/n=X, therefore, the universe is deterministic.

Respond!.
A proper argument should have two premises. Since you only provided one, your argument is wrong.

Here is the proper formulation:

(a+b^n)/n=X
Cheesecake
Therefore, the universe is deterministic.

[Glen.Nogami]

I choose to believe so. :D

See, that's definitely a choice. Can they even find anyone to televise it, anymore? Or has it been relegated to public access TV?

Lest we derail...

Of course, it's possible you're going to pull out the study mentioned above, and say "no look, actually 83% of British people say 'yes, I absolutely believe in God'" or whatever. I'm only going on anecdotal experience here. But believe me, a sizeable chunk of "Christian" responders to surveys and studies will be about as devout as Marilyn Manson compared to their American counterparts. It's harder than you might think to find God-botherers in this country. Disdain for outspoken Christianity might discourage some true believers from speaking out in public, I suppose, but step into a church over here on a Sunday morning and I assure you, you'll have plenty of elbow room.

Apologies for the slight tangent.

That actually sounds quite nice. I hope that a reasonable number of people in America might think that way. TIME Magazine (that paragon of journalism) did a report on this at one point, and the number who believed in a regularly intervening, personal god was hearteningly low, albeit appallingly high. Something in the 30-40 percents, iIrc.

And it certainly isn't a tangent compared to, say, the astrology discussion.

[articulett]

Apology,

Nobody argued for the fact that there are atheists that become religious. We argued that it wasn't nearly what you seem to imagine it is--as many of us know plenty of atheists, and they are in no danger of believing in god OR Santa OR astrology again. Atheism doesn't need to resort to tactics and we don't need to worry about "succeeding" any more than we need to worry that people will start throwing Virgins into Volcanoes and doing rain dances once more. God was a good enough explanation when there was nothing better-- but todays young atheists have a well spring of very smart, admirable, adults behind them including Randi and it's a lot less lonely and scary than it was before--and so much more information on everything-- church abuse, dogma scrutiny, the ways people fool themselves, skepticism, logical fallacies, evolution, the tininess of our place in the universe... there is so much information that people never had before and no way to keep a lid on it and tons of support-- You cannot avoid considering the possibilities and once you examine the evidence, faith tends to fall apart for good. Once you understand that faith is NOT a good way to know anything, you are immune from all such faiths.

I know that many theists say they were former atheists, but they're pretty unconvincing. They never answer these questions: What religion, if any, were you raised and what made you call yourself an atheist? Did anyone else know you considered yourself an atheist? What made you change your mind? A lot of these folks say they were "mad at god"-- I'm sorry, but atheists are not mad at god-- just like they are not mad at Santa or Zeus or the tooth fairy. If you are mad at god--you believe in him, and aren't an atheist.

Do let us know if an outspoken atheist actually converts... because we know there are many outspoken people saying they are not believers. I don't care what people want to call themselves. Theist, deist, Christian, atheist, freethinker, agnostic, "spiritual but not religious" etc. These are just labels people give themselves... others often don't agree. But to an atheist, an atheist is just a person who lacks a belief in a god or gods. That's it. And I'm glad to know that there are more and more people saying that they do not believe--or that their god is some nebulous thing that they have no proof for, but it makes them feel good. I like that gods role is disappearing.

As for your links... one guy calls himself an atheist, but he just respects the teachings of the man named Jesus... and Flew is non-committal... maybe deistic... but he's a very old guy... he might be letting his coming death influence his hopes.

[Lonewulf]

True story: Some girl I heard about declared herself an atheist because she was "mad at God", and wanted to tick him off.

It might be more common than we think. Maybe it's why those people in that private catholic high school I went to assumed that atheism = satanism.

[jaywhat]

In UK you can get a brilliant humanist ceremony (baby naming, wedding or affirmation, and funeral) and more and more people are doing this. There is still the idea that the church wedding is good for the photographs and so on, but with the state of the world being largely the responsibility of one religion or the other surely it is about time that we stood up to be counted. Yes there are atheists who marry believers and agree to play the game and bring up the children in that faith - especially Roman Catholics - but I know a lot of them are not happy.
A lot of people play down their atheism -because of the perception that it will affect their career - especially politicians. I guess this is more so in the States than in UK but it saddens me greatly wherever it happens.

[arthwollipot]

I can't imagine any atheist JREF members converting...

On personal note, I've considered becoming a non-atheist, and I've come to the conclusion that I can't do it. Now I know everything I know, I can't go back to the happy ignorance that religion required.

Mind you, if I did, I'd probably go Baha'i. :D

[Kiosk]

No politician is going to make a big thing out of being an atheist, because it would utterly alienate a small but significant portion of potential voters, but at least ours don't have to pretend to be religious when they're not - and better still, those who are have to keep quiet about it. Tony Blair's oozing piety, especially post-Iraq, played disastrously with the public. Ruth Kelly's involvement with Opus Dei was about as well-received as if she'd been a devil worshipper. Huge numbers of British people find openly religious politicians very creepy, and apart from a few Tory backbenchers in very conservative rural constituencies, politicians know it's wise to keep their lip buttoned on duty regarding God and all that. It doesn't make what does come out of their mouths seem any sweeter, but things would be a thousand times worse if we had to listen to Bible Bits every day too.

[arthwollipot]

The situation has long been pretty much the same in Australia, but recently (<2 years) we have had more and more pollies put their faith on their sleeves. The current Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd (who looks pretty well on track to win next month's general election) has gone on record saying that he wants more of Christian values in Federal Parliament. It's a trend that worries me.

[Cello Man]

Aquila, all of that doesn't amount to anything unless you can prove that there is some viable mechanism that would make astrology true. Again, just read the article I linked and give it some careful thought. Then if you want to continue discussing this further, I suggest you start a new thread in the General Skepticism and the Paranormal subforum so we can stop derailing this thread.

[grayman]

On personal note, I've considered becoming a non-atheist, and I've come to the conclusion that I can't do it. Now I know everything I know, I can't go back to the happy ignorance that religion required.

Mind you, if I did, I'd probably go Baha'i. :D

That's where I came from.

At least they give science an equal share: "Whatever the intelligence of Man cannot understand, religion should not accept. Religion and Science walk hand in hand and any religion contrary to Science is not the truth." -Abdul Baha

[Aquila]

Aquila, all of that doesn't amount to anything unless you can prove that there is some viable mechanism that would make astrology true. Again, just read the article I linked and give it some careful thought. Then if you want to continue discussing this further, I suggest you start a new thread in the General Skepticism and the Paranormal subforum so we can stop derailing this thread.

I don't really want to start another astrology related thread as there are already over a dozen of them on the forum. I am sorry for derailing this one and will get back to the topic in a minute. Briefly though, I would just like to say that I did read Dr. Platt's article and would like to make this comment: He presents conclusive evidence that there is no known mechanism for astrology (gravity, electromagnetism, and the subatomic strong and weak forces). I agree.

However, we are still left with Gauquelin's data, which is confirmed by psychologist H.J. Eysenck. These websites review Eysenck's involvement with astrology:

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/

http://www.planetos.info/eysenck.html

http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologersmemorial/eysenck.html

Since there is a scientifically testable link between the position of the planets and observable data on earth, the only conclusion that I can come to is that the mechanism must be, as yet unobserved by scientists, for example in an area of space-time that we are yet unaware of. I have heard astrophsyicists talk about string theory and shapes with more than 3-dimensions. Perhaps the mechanism for astrology is in one of these dimensions.

Now, back to America's current fascination with atheism. I can understand why many people have turned away from their native religion, because they are fed up of being controlled. Science is "clean", objective, non-emotional and studying or practising it doesn't depend on one's race, language or economic status. I personally think that this is a neccessary phase and it is good. It is cleaning out the crap of the past 5000 years or so. And I think God approves.

[Apology]

Atheism doesn't need to resort to tactics and we don't need to worry about "succeeding" any more than we need to worry that people will start throwing Virgins into Volcanoes and doing rain dances once more.

If you are not worried about atheism's success, then why would you care if some atheists regress to theism?

[Nyarlathotep]

I would hope that it comes, not with a bang, but with a cheer for the realization of the fullest form of religious liberty.

At which point, we all get a pony.

[CFLarsen]

At which point, we all get a pony.

OK, you don't see that happening.

What are you going to do?

[SomeGuy]

I believe that this is true, and I'm hoping that we won't give them any additional ammunition to use against us during the backlash from our behavior right now, during the popularity surge. Seriously, if something happened to Dawkins (any sort of scandal will do) then modern atheism would be in big big trouble. If Dawkins was caught say, sleeping with someone else's wife, then the backlash would be on immediately.

Mwah, don't be too sure about that, the GOP seems to manage prominent members promiscuity fairly unscathed.

(Which I suppose it should as members private behaviour shouldn't invalidate a party's political agenda).

Is Dawkins married? Because I really do believe that when sleeping with someone else's wife or husband, the burden of guilt lies with the actual adulterer, not with the lover. I am not responsible for handling the way other people deal with fidelity in their relationship, though I can say one thing, I would not help my married lover help cover up our relationship, that would be dishonest.

[Apology]

Mwah, don't be too sure about that, the GOP seems to manage prominent members promiscuity fairly unscathed.

(Which I suppose it should as members private behaviour shouldn't invalidate a party's political agenda).

Is Dawkins married? Because I really do believe that when sleeping with someone else's wife or husband, the burden of guilt lies with the actual adulterer, not with the lover. I am not responsible for handling the way other people deal with fidelity in their relationship, though I can say one thing, I would not help my married lover help cover up our relationship, that would be dishonest.

I don't know if Dawkins is married or not; I was just pulling a fairly typical scandal out of the air. I do think it would affect him even if he wasn't the married person in the illicit relationship; if nothing else, the theists would trumpet "I told you so!" and everyone would think atheists were even more immoral than they apparently do now.

I guess I was thinking of Clinton, and how it didn't matter that he managed to balance the budget (quite the impressive feat!) once he was caught with his pants down. I can also think of a very crude joke with the line "Do they call me Pierre the Philanthropist? NO!!!" that would be a violation of Rule 10 if I repeated it in this forum, that made me use the cheating analogy. Really, it could be any kind of scandal; insider trading would serve just as well.

Edit: It also occurs to me that atheists have more enemies than Republicans. There are many more Republicans than atheists in the US. That makes it a little easier for the GOP to defend itself.

[SomeGuy]

I don't know if Dawkins is married or not; I was just pulling a fairly typical scandal out of the air. I do think it would affect him even if he wasn't the married person in the illicit relationship; if nothing else, the theists would trumpet "I told you so!" and everyone would think atheists were even more immoral than they apparently do now.

I guess I was thinking of Clinton, and how it didn't matter that he managed to balance the budget (quite the impressive feat!) once he was caught with his pants down. I can also think of a very crude joke with the line "Do they call me Pierre the Philanthropist? NO!!!" that would be a violation of Rule 10 if I repeated it in this forum, that made me use the cheating analogy. Really, it could be any kind of scandal; insider trading would serve just as well.

Edit: It also occurs to me that atheists have more enemies than Republicans. There are many more Republicans than atheists in the US. That makes it a little easier for the GOP to defend itself.


I'm sorry my last parahraph made it sound like I thought it wouldn't reflect badly on him.

Naturally it would, but I think you overstated the effect it would have on atheists in general. There will be a slight backlash, but only amongst those people who really allready believe us to be immoral people anyways.

I think most normal people on either side of the fence realize that the actions of one individual don't mean diddly doo about the group as a whole.

Of course people like DOC would have a field day, but I don't think that even mainstream christians have a very high impression of people like him.

[Nyarlathotep]

OK, you don't see that happening.

What are you going to do?

What are you going to do about the fact that we will never all be rich and handsome. My guess is that we will be doing the exact same thing; nothing.

Thre's no upside to expecting that which will never happen, to happen.

[Apology]

Okay here's another atheist turned theist:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52791
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2005/04/from_atheism_to.html

Didn't have to go far to find this guy. Again, it doesn't matter if you think he's crazy or delusional; the only relevant fact for this discussion is that he reverted from atheism to theism. I'd also like people to read his blog that I linked, as it may give some clues as to why people do this strange thing, reverting from atheism to theism, and how we might prevent it, or help others through such a crisis.

Edit: Please take a close look at Prescott's point 3. I think we may have some sort of an answer to the question of why theists believe that atheists are immoral.

[Kiosk]

That point 3 is an old, old argument, though. And a terribly weak one. I've heard 13 year olds demolish it.

His point 5 is a better clue as to why an atheist might forsake reason. Fear, pure and simple. Some atheists appreciate the transience of life, others find it rather depressing but are forced to accept it. Prescott, clearly, could manage neither. Now, you know, I can understand that - I'm not crazy about turning to dust myself, and it would be nice to think my dad was hanging out in the sky waiting for me to show up, so we could go fishing again. Problem is, I can't just snap my fingers and believe something. Neither can I force myself through philosophical hoops in order to make it seem somehow plausible.

Faced with annihilation, others will do whatever it takes.

[Apology]

That point 3 is an old, old argument, though. And a terribly weak one. I've heard 13 year olds demolish it.

His point 5 is a better clue as to why an atheist might forsake reason. Fear, pure and simple. Some atheists appreciate the transience of life, others find it rather depressing but are forced to accept it. Prescott, clearly, could manage neither. Now, you know, I can understand that - I'm not crazy about turning to dust myself, and it would be nice to think my dad was hanging out in the sky waiting for me to show up, so we could go fishing again. Problem is, I can't just snap my fingers and believe something. Neither can I force myself through philosophical hoops in order to make it seem somehow plausible.

Faced with annihilation, others will do whatever it takes.

He even admits point 3 is weak; I just thought it offered a clue as to how theists come to the conclusion that they are more moral: they just can't stand the idea that morality is a human construct rather than an intrinsic part of the universe. You could even say that they lack faith in their fellow man although they have great faith in God the Invisible.

The whole "faced with annihilation" problem is a great part of my point; it's easy to be idealistic while young. Once people start getting married, having kids, getting old and closer to death, there seems to be a window of opportunity for things like secular woo and even religion to sneak into atheists' minds. It's a common perception that people become more religious when they are elderly.

What can we do to prevent it? I surely don't know; if I did, I wouldn't be telling people about the distressing number of people who I know reverted to theism because I would have tried to prevent their reversion, and one can assume that I would have been successful with at least some of them. I think a key to it might be in our attitudes as atheists. We need to debate instead of argue. We need to teach instead of mock. We need to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Any church in town would welcome us with open arms, no questions asked, but when theists come to us, they are put through a trial by fire of their beliefs, laughed at, and scorned. Pretend, just for a minute, that you are on the dividing line between belief and unbelief. You're looking for answers, asking questions of people who seem to be authorities in their field. Are you going to go with the guys who talk about love and holiness or are you going to go with the guys who laugh at you and call you an idiot?

No wonder there are still so many Christians. :(

[DOC]

Interesting article on the recent surge of popularity in Atheism.


Originally Posted by DOC
Has anybody else noticed the recent surge in messed up youth like Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc.

I wonder if that former mouseketeer Annette Funicello of the 50's ever considered shaving her head or going after a reporter with an umbrella like the former mouseketeer Britney Spears.


Yep, back in the good old days when starlets knew that rape was something to be expected at studio parties.

Yea, but the Christians didn't run the studios back then. (or now for that matter)
Have you ever heard of the book "Hollywood against America". Where the author claims that some in Hollywood are interested in an agenda even if it means less of a profit.

[Hokulele]

Since there is a scientifically testable link between the position of the planets and observable data on earth, the only conclusion that I can come to is that the mechanism must be, as yet unobserved by scientists, for example in an area of space-time that we are yet unaware of. I have heard astrophsyicists talk about string theory and shapes with more than 3-dimensions.


Everyone, repeat after me, "Correlation does not equal causation." And no, there is no testable link. I have seen many cases of confirmation bias and poorly chosen data, but no links. None.

Perhaps the mechanism for astrology is in one of these dimensions.


No, it isn't.

[Kiosk]

Has anybody else noticed the recent surge in messed up youth like Britney Spears, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc.

All outspoken Christians.

Now as far as I'm concerned, that's neither here nor there. But DOC, if you live by the sword...

[Lonewulf]

I wonder if that former mouseketeer Annette Funicello of the 50's ever considered shaving her head[...]

I was not under the impression that you could judge someone's mental facilities by their hairstyle choices...

But yeah, that stupid Einstein. Never combed his hair, that slack! ;)

(Note: I still think that Britney Spears is overrated... on all fronts... and is not the brightest bulb in the dumpster. But bringing up her decision to shave her head as evidence of that is pretty stupid, IMO)

[joobz]

Yea, but the Christians didn't run the studios back then. (or now for that matter)
Have you ever heard of the book "Hollywood against America". Where the author claims that some in Hollywood are interested in an agenda even if it means less of a profit.
DOC, what are you insinuating? Be direct in your claims. Otherwise, it seems that you are simply trying to stir the pot with lies.

For example, I could say.
Has anyone noticed the number of child molesters who are priests.

but this is simply a leading statement and rather loaded. A better and more direct claim is.

With the number of child molestation cases that has occured in the catholic church and with the church's original response to these cases, it is clear that religion does not reduce the likelihood of someone committing horrible acts of atrocity. Indeed, in this case, the church facilitated these acts to occur by their attempts of coverup. Therefore, it is my claim that religion (or at least organized christian religions) are inherently more moral than people who hold faith or no faith independantly.

[Ladewig]

I was not under the impression that you could judge someone's mental facilities by their hairstyle choices...

But yeah, that stupid Einstein. Never combed his hair, that slack! ;)

(Note: I still think that Britney Spears is overrated... on all fronts... and is not the brightest bulb in the dumpster. But bringing up her decision to shave her head as evidence of that is pretty stupid, IMO)

The head shaving came about as a result of Kevin threatening to cut her hair and have it sent to a drug testing lab. She may have done it for a foolish reason, but it is not a sign of her being a kook.

[arthwollipot]

That's where I came from.

At least they give science an equal share: "Whatever the intelligence of Man cannot understand, religion should not accept. Religion and Science walk hand in hand and any religion contrary to Science is not the truth." -Abdul Baha

Exactly.

[arthwollipot]

Since there is a scientifically testable link between the position of the planets and observable data on earth, the only conclusion that I can come to is that the mechanism must be, as yet unobserved by scientists, for example in an area of space-time that we are yet unaware of. I have heard astrophsyicists talk about string theory and shapes with more than 3-dimensions. Perhaps the mechanism for astrology is in one of these dimensions.

Perhaps you should actually read up on what string theory says about shapes with more than three dimensions. Then you would realise that the extra dimensions couldn't possibly provide a mechanism for astrology.

For that matter, neither can anything else.