Atheism Peaks, While Spiritual Groups Move Toward Convergence

[Potoooooooo]

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...iritual_groups_move_toward_convergence-156528


Globalized data shows hardliners on all sides losing, and points to emergence of open-minded pro-science, pro-spiritual outlook

*

THE WORLD IS TURNING ATHEIST, the media tells us. Europe is already dominated by non-believers and plummeting church attendance figures elsewhere indicate that religion itself could disappear within a generation. Christianity is shrinking fast, extremism has soured Islam, and the fastest growing belief-system is to have no beliefs, which could lead to the world becoming a peaceful, atheist utopia. So says conventional wisdom in some quarters.1

*

Are there figures to back this up? Actually, no. Indeed, a close examination of empirical data about world-views tells a story that is different in almost every way—and especially in regard to humanity’s next chapter.

Atheism as a belief system has peaked and its share of humanity is shrinking, demographic studies indicate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheism as a belief system

Kind of ironic in an article attempting to show that the media cannot be trusted to accurately report on religion....

 

[Cerberus]

' non-believers and plummeting church attendance figures elsewhere indicate that religion itself could disappear within a generation.

We can only hope (and pray?

) that it does disappear, recalling all the trouble and human misery it has caused and is continuing to cause.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Atheism as a belief system

Kind of ironic in an article attempting to show that the media cannot be trusted to accurately report on religion....

Could it be a disbelief system. (Of course by system this will be a methodology of research and not a religious system). The media cannot generally be trusted to report accurately on anything)

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

The problem with atheism for those people is that it defies systems and organizations. It's too simple. Religious belief is a complex thing people build their identities and lives around. Therefore, atheists must have a similar set of constructs and notions. Well, no.

They live in a gigantic and elaborate cardboard house and atheism is the simple little blue-tip match on the floor that can burn it all down. And rather than understanding that it's a match, they've brought in a team of people with microscopes who are going apeshit trying to figure out what it is.

"How can a thing so tiny be such a threat to the gigantic construct? There must be more to it!"

Well, there isn't. Atheists just don't believe in god. That's where the commonalities among them can and often do end.

It's a very disappointing answer.

 

[abaddon]

The surest way to deflect from the main point to a lesser one among atheists is to appear to get the definition of “atheist” wrong. They'll elaborate the definition to death, and often. This mere “lack of belief” sure has a lot of identity issues wrapped up in it.

Meanwhile a number of the “everybody gets atheism wrong” folk go on making a false dichotomy between atheism and religion. They perpetuate another extremely common mistake: the identity of religion with theism.

I think religion will change and never go away. The added options in polls to allow a place for the irreligious who aren’t atheist and the religious who aren’t theists are increasing, not because the world’s turning atheist but because more and more people (including many atheists) seek a non-traditional religion or “spirituality”.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The surest way to deflect from the main point to a lesser one among atheists is to appear to get the definition of “atheist” wrong.

Well, it's the only thing i found interesting in the article.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think religion will change and never go away. The added options in polls to allow a place for the irreligious who aren’t atheist and the religious who aren’t theists are increasing, not because the world’s turning atheist but because more and more people (including many atheists) seek a non-traditional religion or “spirituality”.

Of course it won't go away, and of course, yes, it will change. It never ceases to surprise me that this is even a question. Religion is culture. It is an artifact of human existence.

I think some people miss this entirely and believe that religion is a superfluous and unnecessary appendage of civilization, something that could be lopped off and then all will be rational and good. But I'd like to believe that most of us, at least here on this board of thinkers, talk about religion in terms of it "going away" when what we really mean is that we hope for humanity to learn to develop ourselves consciously, with knowledge, experience, and empathy driving our creation of culture rather than superstition and irrational adherence to preconceived stories about reality.

 

[ronburgundy]

Although the article gets many things wrong, including what atheism is (it is the absence of a belief in an super-natural/non-material personal God, not whether you check "atheism" on a survey), it does make a few valid points about why the growth of non-theism may be slower than it otherwise should be given that it is a natural by-product of liberty and knowledge. Non-theists have fewer kids. Former communist states that forced non-theism are seeing resurgences of theism. So the question becomes, if you ignore China, Russia, and other nations with recent forced non-theism, and you control for birth rates, are younger generations still becoming less theistic than their parents?

Look at page 17 of this paper. It shows % of people that are certain that God exists, broken up by age groups. In almost every country, the % of certain theists drops with every drop in age bracket. This drop in theism is true in countries that are relatively religious like Chile and Poland, and those that have been non-religious for some time and are now even less so, like France and Denmark. Of course, people do increase in their religiosity with age, but much of this generational difference will remain even after the current 25 year olds reach 50.

Only a single country out of the 30 they examined show an increase in certain theism among the younger generation. That is Israel, in case you need any more evidence why we should not support this neo-theocracy.

 

[remez]

The surest way to deflect from the main point to a lesser one among atheists is to appear to get the definition of “atheist” wrong. They'll elaborate the definition to death, and often. This mere “lack of belief” sure has a lot of identity issues wrapped up in it.

Are you and others claiming the atheism just means “a lack of belief in a God or Gods?”

And by this are you and others are implying that atheism is therefore not a worldview?

Thus providing an escape hatch from having to defend your worldview?

 

[skepticalbip]

The surest way to deflect from the main point to a lesser one among atheists is to appear to get the definition of “atheist” wrong. They'll elaborate the definition to death, and often. This mere “lack of belief” sure has a lot of identity issues wrapped up in it.

Are you and others claiming the atheism just means “a lack of belief in a God or Gods?”

Yup..

And by this are you and others are implying that atheism is therefore not a worldview?

A lack of belief in gods is no more a world view for atheists than a lack of belief in the Loch Ness monster is a world view for a theist. For theists, the Loch Ness monster is just something they rarely even think about unless someone brings it up just as atheists don't consider gods unless someone brings it up.

Thus providing an escape hatch from having to defend your worldview?

Atheists world views include a lot that could be argued but just don't include a god. If you want an atheist to defend their worldview then you have to challenge what they do believe. You wouldn't challenge a theist's worldview by expecting them to support their lack of belief in the Loch Ness monster would you?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The surest way to deflect from the main point to a lesser one among atheists is to appear to get the definition of “atheist” wrong. They'll elaborate the definition to death, and often. This mere “lack of belief” sure has a lot of identity issues wrapped up in it.

Are you and others claiming the atheism just means “a lack of belief in a God or Gods?”

And by this are you and others are implying that atheism is therefore not a worldview?

Thus providing an escape hatch from having to defend your worldview?

No, we can defend our worldviews, but "atheism" doesn't define them anymore than "theism" defines them for a believer. There are numerous theistic philosophies, such as Christianity and Hinduism, but the generic term "theism" doesn't give them a worldview to defend. It's the type of theism they practice which leads to a worldview.

Atheism is a similarly generic term. It means no more than that someone doesn't believe in any gods - full stop. There are atheistic philosophies, such as communism and secular humanism, which give one their worldviews, but the generic "atheism" doesn't provide any type of worldview in and of itself.

 

[Sarpedon]

Ah! What a world we live in where believing only in things for which there is supporting evidence is considered a controversial worldview!

 

[remez]

Are you and others claiming the atheism just means “a lack of belief in a God or Gods?”

Yup..

And by this are you and others are implying that atheism is therefore not a worldview?

A lack of belief in gods is no more a world view for atheists than a lack of belief in the Loch Ness monster is a world view for a theist. For theists, the Loch Ness monster is just something they rarely even think about unless someone brings it up just as atheists don't consider gods unless someone brings it up.

Thus providing an escape hatch from having to defend your worldview?

Atheists world views include a lot that could be argued but just don't include a god. If you want an atheist to defend their worldview then you have to challenge what they do believe. You wouldn't challenge a theist's worldview by expecting them to support their lack of belief in the Loch Ness monster would you?

And

No, we can defend our worldviews, but "atheism" doesn't define them anymore than "theism" defines them for a believer. There are numerous theistic philosophies, such as Christianity and Hinduism, but the generic term "theism" doesn't give them a worldview to defend. It's the type of theism they practice which leads to a worldview.

Atheism is a similarly generic term. It means no more than that someone doesn't believe in any gods - full stop. There are atheistic philosophies, such as communism and secular humanism, which give one their worldviews, but the generic "atheism" doesn't provide any type of worldview in and of itself.

I understand your definition. Atheism is just a claim about the atheist’s state of mind, not a claim about God’s existence. You’re not psychologically convinced God exists. So what?
But observe….

The problem with atheism for those people is that it defies systems and organizations. It's too simple. Religious belief is a complex thing people build their identities and lives around. Therefore, atheists must have a similar set of constructs and notions. Well, no.

They live in a gigantic and elaborate cardboard house and atheism is the simple little blue-tip match on the floor that can burn it all down. And rather than understanding that it's a match, they've brought in a team of people with microscopes who are going apeshit trying to figure out what it is.

"How can a thing so tiny be such a threat to the gigantic construct? There must be more to it!"

Well, there isn't. Atheists just don't believe in god. That's where the commonalities among them can and often do end.

It's a very disappointing answer.

This match is not a not a psychological state of mind. It is a destructive force to destroy theism. What does “Atheists just don’t believe in god.” mean? They lack belief or that God does not exist?
And…

Ah! What a world we live in where believing only in things for which there is supporting evidence is considered a controversial worldview!

Is this stating atheism is a worldview?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, we can defend our worldviews, but "atheism" doesn't define them anymore than "theism" defines them for a believer. There are numerous theistic philosophies, such as Christianity and Hinduism, but the generic term "theism" doesn't give them a worldview to defend. It's the type of theism they practice which leads to a worldview.

Atheism is a similarly generic term. It means no more than that someone doesn't believe in any gods - full stop. There are atheistic philosophies, such as communism and secular humanism, which give one their worldviews, but the generic "atheism" doesn't provide any type of worldview in and of itself.

I understand your definition. Atheism is just a claim about the atheist’s state of mind, not a claim about God’s existence. You’re not psychologically convinced God exists. So what?

So what, indeed? If someone's talking about their supper, do you respond "Supper? That's just a meal one has in the evening. So what?" as if you were making a point?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here.

 

[Sarpedon]

Is this stating atheism is a worldview?

No, it is sarcasm and mockery.

 

[remez]

I understand your definition. Atheism is just a claim about the atheist’s state of mind, not a claim about God’s existence. You’re not psychologically convinced God exists. So what?

So what, indeed? If someone's talking about their supper, do you respond "Supper? That's just a meal one has in the evening. So what?" as if you were making a point?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here.

I get your reasons for claiming that atheism is nothing more than a "lack of belief" and is not a worldview. Your definition is nothing more than a psychological state of mind. Yet others on this thread seem to take a direction that atheism is the worldview that God does not exist which naturally leads to an opposing worldview. Just trying to assess which it is.

 

[remez]

Is this stating atheism is a worldview?

No, it is sarcasm and mockery.

I got it. You were mocking peoples beliefs about the worldview of atheism.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So what, indeed? If someone's talking about their supper, do you respond "Supper? That's just a meal one has in the evening. So what?" as if you were making a point?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here.

I get your reasons for claiming that atheism is nothing more than a "lack of belief" and is not a worldview. Your definition is nothing more than a psychological state of mind. Yet others on this thread seem to take a direction that atheism is the worldview that God does not exist which naturally leads to an opposing worldview. Just trying to assess which it is.

How are they saying that? They seem to be saying the exact opposite of that.

"God doesn't exist" isn't a worldview. It's a statement of belief in God. Full stop.

It can lead to various worldviews, just as a positive statement of belief in God can lead to worldviews, but that doesn't make theism a worldview. It serves as a basis to lead to various theistic worldviews, but isn't one in and of itself.

 

[skepticalbip]

I get your reasons for claiming that atheism is nothing more than a "lack of belief" and is not a worldview. Your definition is nothing more than a psychological state of mind. Yet others on this thread seem to take a direction that atheism is the worldview that God does not exist which naturally leads to an opposing worldview. Just trying to assess which it is.

Actually it is more than just a "psychological state of mind". It is more a conclusion reached after a lot of research. Most atheists seem to know more about religions than the believers in those religions. This is because most have actually done a lot of study of the dogma, tenets, basis, history, etc. in an attempt to understand what the faith is about. My grandfather was a minister so I grew up in the church and begin trying to understand the self-contradictions in the religion at about the age of twelve. Finding that the self-contradictions were indeed exactly that, I looked into other religions trying to find some reasonable faith, unsuccessfully. I finally began trying to make sense of the concept of a god and could find no sense or reason in the concept.