NoGodBlog.com

Read the survey data and you find that the unaffiliated group is more educated, more wealthy and has lower divorce rates than the evangelical group. I expect those numbers would be even more favorable for atheists and agnostics if they would have done a better job and given those stats as well.

Poor theists than put so much of their resources into their religion and they get nothing for it.

Ah looks like there are more detailed stats in the pdf files and my suspicions were confirmed.

I know about as many Atheists as Jews. I am one of the 44% who left their childhood religions-- I was raised United Methodist (mainstream Protestant) but in my 20s I read a good book about Jesus and became a confirmed Atheist and joined a Unitarian Universalist church which is about 30% Atheist. For some of my Atheist friends and relatives, UUism is too much like church and religion but being a single gay man I need other people in my life and I find them in a UU church. Besides, UUism is gay-friendly. Not too much of that here in North Carolina-- even in the big city of Raleigh. I really like the good news that non-religious people are growing in numbers especially among the young adults-- it gives me hope for the future.

Not much has changed.

One has to question any study on religion.
I do believe atheists are growing. It was 30 years ago when I first heard of an atheist. I thought they were rude and arrogant to denounce religions. How wrong I was.
I can see how easy it is for people to be on the wrong side of the fence,without knowledge of it.
Also, there seems to be trends, such as Joel Olsteen, to people bettering themselves rather than committing to religion (even though religion is integrated)
Ah, so even with the vast brain washing attempts, people still aren't falling for the BS. That's good to know.
BTW, did anyone see House where they said Happy Solstice?
I wouldn't take that 4% at face value. These are people who have the guts to admit they are atheists. Not to mention, was this skewed by a religious person?
I would say out of the people who say they have no religious affiliation, many are atheists and many who say they do, are afraid of the Xtians.

Any chance of getting a site for members only? There are a lot of things I'd like to talk about and don't want Xtians hearing.

To Sam Moore Jr.,
While not being gay myself, I find a lot of acceptance now of gays/lesb.
It is getting better Sam. Just as racial hatred in this country is disappearing, so is the prejudice of gays. Hold your head up. More and more people are becoming acceptant. My whole family is, and we are atheist, bhudas, xtian and baptists. We spread dislike for those who would hate people without knowing. Fortunately my father and his wife have latched strongly to this and have many gay friends. They will hear no bigotry without giving someone an earful. I work for a company that will not have it either. Talk of discrimination, this post allows me to post gay but not lesb.

CNN's American Morning news program is running a Quick Vote survey which pertains to the subject of this blog entry. It asks:


A new poll says 44 percent of Americans are swapping religions from the one in which they were raised. Have you:

1. Made a Change
2. Kept the Faith
3. Called it Quits

Presently "Called it Quits" has over 50 percent of the votes. You can submit your vote here:


http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/american.morning/

deak,
I went to the CNN website to vote, but they didn't have a cagtegory for me. You know, the one that says: Never believed the horse shit in the first place.

Called it quits is now at 59%.

I think for theists it is not atheists and agnostics that they need to worry about, but the millions of Americans who may claim to be religious/spiritual/whatever but are virtually indistinguishable from atheists and agnostics. If you don't go to church, don't know anything about religion, don't derive any particular beliefs from religion, but simply answer yes to a survey question, can you still be considered religious?

OK guys we are GROWING! REALITY RULES!!

Well I knew Dave had trouble with spelling...

Comment from: DD Dropout
I know it is a challenging name to spell, but surely Dave? Three wrong spellings of the name of the founder of AA in one post is tragic.

http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/01/12/madelyn_story_on_tv_again#comments

But apparently math isn't Dave's strong subject either...

The Pew Research Center stated that 1.6% of Amercia are atheists...and 1.7% Jewish...

So, on average, people know at least twice as many Atheists as they know Jews, right?

Hmmm....no

How many times have I heard 30 million kicked around...?

The real story is that 8 in 10 are Christian. Period. You can spin it anyway you want to make it more palatible...but those numbers are astounding...

Is it any wonder the rest of the world calls us a Christian Nation...

Sam,
I'm a gay atheist over here in Chapel Hill, NC and just one of several Triangle area residents in this group.

Is it any wonder the rest of the world considers the US to be chronically brain damaged? If 8 out of 10 (I don't believe that bogus stat for a second, especially considering the source and the lack of factual data to support it) americans are thought to be religiously insane by the rest of the world, what hope do those of us who have abandoned the occult superstitions of the christians have?

phreedm,
The real story here is the number of people that go shopping for a belief system. How can there be so many different versions of the one and only truth?

The fact is: churches are changing their ways/messages in order to attract new adherants, and avoid loosing the old ones. Just one more example of how man created god, and not vice-versa!

If you want to be more 'Christ like', why aren't you Jewish? Jesus was a jew. Why aren't you? Oh, right. You went shopping for a s(creed) that matched what you already believe, just like everyone else.

How many slaves do you own, phreedm? Have you beaten them recently? The bible says it is not only okay, but spells out how and when it is allowable, so it must true. Right? You DO believe the bible is infallible don't you, or are you not a TRUE CHRISTIAN? (And) why is it that our Christian Nation doesn't allow slavery any longer? Doesn't sound very Christian to me.

Maybe you should commit herbacide. You know what herbacide is, don't you? That's when you stone yourself to death.

Happy blathering!

Pha

If you don't go to church, don't know anything about religion, don't derive any particular beliefs from religion, but simply answer yes to a survey question, can you still be considered religious?

Excellent point! People sure can compartmentalize their thinking.

I've found some far more important research:
http://xkcd.com/373/

Who cares about opinion polls? I want the facts. I already know most of the world is irrational.

As of now, "Called it quits" on that poll is at 56% and I agree with pha's question and answer with "I don't think so"

That's terrific that we're growing, now we just need to organize! Atheists in the US could become a political faction (especially since we're growing) if we weren't scattered and unorganized...

Comment from: rantingraver [Member]

That's terrific that we're growing, now we just need to organize! Atheists in the US could become a political faction (especially since we're growing) if we weren't scattered and unorganized...

Many people hold out hope that Democrats will someday be able to do the same thing...

That's terrific that we're growing, now we just need to organize!

It would be easier to herd cats than to organise atheists. Atheists tend to be free thinking nonconformists who don't join groups or have a herd mentality.

Never believed the horse shit in the first place.

Me too!

That's terrific that we're growing, now we just need to organize! Atheists in the US could become a political faction (especially since we're growing) if we weren't scattered and unorganized...

I wish that could happen, but alexatheist is correct - herding those kitty cats would be much easier. At the very least, we need to educate the general public and make them aware that they probably do know atheists in their day-to-day life - and that most of us are just plain old nice folks! Really! It's a public relations problem, IMO.

It would be easier to herd cats than to organize atheists. Atheists tend to be free thinking nonconformists who don't join groups or have a herd mentality.

And, organizing around an absence of belief would be a little odd.

Ah, yes. I can see it now. Someone with a microphone is standing on a stage and saying, "Could all those who don't believe in doing whatever any authority figure says, please stand over here?"

DVan,

And, organizing around an absence of belief would be a little odd.

I don't believe you. Who's with me? :-)

Tarma,

Me too!

You own a Honda Civic?

Let me digress. When I was a young soldier stationed at Ft. Lewis, WA, the local Honda dealer had a first time buyers program that only applied to Civics. So naturally, there were hundreds of Civics running around post. You couldn't go to the PX and not park next to one and usually between two with five more in the same row you were in.

It got to the point where the oft' heard conversation went something like this: "What kind of car do you have? A Honda Civic. ME TOO!" So we called them 'me too' cars.

Sorry to waste everyones time on something so trivial, but it is funny how little things can bring memories flooding back. Thanks.

Uh oh, DVan used the dreaded "absence of belief" phrase.

An absence implies that something is missing, many atheists do not believe that anything is missing, so atheism is not an absence of belief. I think it's safer to say "rejection of belief," but even that isn't always true.

alatham,
I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "absence of belief". Something IS missing. Belief in the supernatural. Just because something is missing, does not make it incorrect. It's just a matter of semantics. I would also agree with the statement "rejection of belief". I don't see a double entendre in either statement.

will the religions that can tie in race and national identity do well.i mean by religion the Roman definition of binding a group of people together.would we be better off if we had a state religion. it doesn't have to be based on supernatural, one with a common set of moral beliefs and shared langauge or blood ties would do.a religion must also offer hope and comfort.
final thoughts groups like religious right have strict moral codes this attracts people because it is not about what you are but what you would like to be.
i would like to hear your views.

evolution if it has not stopped in humans then are not some group or groups the chosen people 'chosen by nature'.i know this makes people uneasy but it is the logical result if you believe in evolution.
creation if you believe in creation do you not have a duty to convert or destroy those outside your group.how can you justify accepting everyone and subscibe to either creation or evolution.

And, organizing around an absence of belief would be a little odd.

We all visit this site because of the aspirations we share for a better world free of religious tormentors. I, like many of you, have become members and supporters of AA in a fight against religious tyranny. So it appears we are already united and for good reason.

It would be easier to herd cats than to organize atheists.

A leopard can't change his spots but he can sure spot another leopard.

Alatham

I think it's safer to say "rejection of belief,"

While I agree that "rejection of belief" is preferable to "absence of belief" I would not choose either. I would rather leave the belief nonsense out of the description and choose something like "observation, description, prediction".

reason,

it doesn't have to be based on supernatural, one with a common set of moral beliefs and shared langauge or blood ties would do.a religion must also offer hope and comfort.
final thoughts groups like religious right have strict moral codes this attracts people because it is not about what you are but what you would like to be.
i would like to hear your views.

That seems to be a commonly held belief in the United States. We need christianity to bind us together and to provide hope and comfort, provide us with morals so society doesn't go crazy but, then you look at less religious countries and notice that they are also less violent. It seems likely that christianity and religion in general actually causes more problems than it solves.

Without religion we would live by laws that are passed, hopefully by the will of the people and wishfully by adding intelligent debate and honesty by lawmakers. Without religion we could actually have a chance at finding honesty, instead of the christian honesty were anything that is not an explicit and proven lie is honesty IF you state that you are afraid of the christian god-idea.

evolution if it has not stopped in humans then are not some group or groups the chosen people 'chosen by nature'.i know this makes people uneasy but it is the logical result if you believe in evolution.

Evolution is a process, that doesn't stop. Humans do alter the environment but, evolution does not stop. Evolution happens because the basic building blocks of life don't get copied always exactly the same each and every time. That basic part of evolution has no direction or concept of higher, lower, best, worst or, anything else. Those concepts are assigned by humans.

People often only think of evolution as "survival of the fittest" but without human intervention "fittest" (and note in any case "fittest" isn't the same as best) is only a description of what has a better chance to survive under specific circumstances at specific times. If events in Earth's history had been different in any number of ways, the "intelligent" species at this time might be somewhat different.

Aren't you more referring to groups of people being chosen by the processes of the societies that humans have built as opposed to chosen by nature?

how can you justify accepting everyone and subscibe to either creation or evolution.

If you are referring to skin color here, I have no problem accepting everyone, there just isn't any significant difference. If you are asking how do I justify accepting christians that won't quit trying to push their god-idea on everyone else, well, I don't accept them as being decent people.

Ren,

You own a Honda Civic?

Well, you had me going there for a moment. Good story.

I hope to never own a Honda Civic, but love driving our little red 1990 Miata, still running like a top after all these years :)

evolution if it has not stopped in humans then are not some group or groups the chosen people 'chosen by nature'.i know this makes people uneasy but it is the logical result if you believe in evolution.

this reminds me of when people say "well, if we evolved from monkeys then whycome there's still monkeys?"

like rna2dna said, evolution is not a goal-oriented process. every gene, and every combination of genes that exists in the world right now is equally fit. we can only call a gene combination unfit when it ceases to exist in the world.

that being said, if evolution had a chosen people it would be beetles if not bacteria.

Alatham,
Uh oh, Alatham used the dreaded "rejection of belief,". Which implies that the 'belief' is valid and that one is simply rejecting it.

On the other hand, an absence of belief means I haven't been indoctrinated into giving the 'belief' validity by rejecting it.

God I hate semantics.

Dvan,

I'm no fan of semantics either, but I think we atheists are misunderstood often enough to have to pay attention to it.

And I disagree with you here.

Rejected: cast off as valueless.

Absence: lack; want. OR the state of being away.

Let me clarify. An absence implies some level of 'wanting,' or implies that there was something there to begin with. I have no desire for religious belief so I instead cast it off as valueless.

You seem to be saying that your definition is similar to saying "I'm not going to dignify that with a response." I like that approach, but that only fits with the use of 'rejection' and does not fit with 'absence.'

To me, using 'absence' gives the god-belief far more validity than using 'rejection.'

In the end though, the most generic definition is that atheists are not theists. Maybe that's the one we should stick to.

Ren,

Something IS missing. Belief in the supernatural.

I disagree. I believe that there can be no valid belief in the supernatural. Anyone who says they believe in the supernatural is really just saying they can't explain everything.

It implies that there's something wrong with me because I can't see what others plainly can. I reject this definition on the grounds that it seems to validate a belief in the supernatural.

Would you prefer to say (1) that Unicorns are missing, or (2) that a belief in Unicorns is unfounded? Saying there is an absence of Unicorns implies #1, but saying you reject a belief in Unicorns implies #2.

As I said before, I don't like semantics either, but it's important to communicate our atheism as unambiguously as possible.

What,

Are you proposing that we refer to atheism as an observation of reality? Or that we refer to atheism as a rejection of a particular faulty observation of deities?

Alatham

I am simply suggesting that we just leave the word "belief" out of any description of atheists. I too dislike the word "absence" when referring to atheism.