Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time
Discussion
New report about to be released: http://news.sky.com/story/1701109/christians-in-uk...
Hardly a surprise really, but the biggest shift has been people brought up with religion now ticking the 'no religion' box whereas previously these people would have still ticked the box for the religion they were brought up with, despite not practicing it.
I'm at the age where my friends are getting married, and most of the weddings I have attended over the last few years have been non-religious, which I wouldn't have predicted if you asked me 10 years ago.
I remember having an argument with my mum when I was about 20 where I told her I thought religion was utter nonsense and that I didn't wish to partake in it. She was really quite annoyed and stated that I was 'raised Church of England' and therefore I couldn't just be 'non religious'!
Hardly a surprise really, but the biggest shift has been people brought up with religion now ticking the 'no religion' box whereas previously these people would have still ticked the box for the religion they were brought up with, despite not practicing it.
I'm at the age where my friends are getting married, and most of the weddings I have attended over the last few years have been non-religious, which I wouldn't have predicted if you asked me 10 years ago.
I remember having an argument with my mum when I was about 20 where I told her I thought religion was utter nonsense and that I didn't wish to partake in it. She was really quite annoyed and stated that I was 'raised Church of England' and therefore I couldn't just be 'non religious'!
Derek Smith said:
I wonder what the figures would be if you removed the guilt
Exactly.I said said in my post, I had an argument with my mum over it, and felt really bad for a while. My brother is getting married in a few months and is having a non-religious ceremony, which again resulted in our mum being upset. She's fine now but it wasn't very pleasant when my brother broke the news to her that it wasn't a church wedding.
We are just a standard 'Church of England but only really go on Christmas Eve' type family, imagine what it's like if your family are of a much stronger religious conviction.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Just because you tick the "no religion" box, doesn't qualify you as an atheist. Most people I know have no religion, but have replaced it with a kind of airy fairy new age nonsense.
They believe in some "higher power" or something "out there bigger than us", in karma, or feng sui, healing crystals, mystics, homeopathy and no end of other hocus pocus and supernatural claptrap.
I wouldn't class them as atheists at all.
At least they aren't building churches. Yet. They believe in some "higher power" or something "out there bigger than us", in karma, or feng sui, healing crystals, mystics, homeopathy and no end of other hocus pocus and supernatural claptrap.
I wouldn't class them as atheists at all.
Eric Mc said:
Einion Yrth said:
Eric Mc said:
These threads always take off like a rocket.
People may not be religious anymore but it seems many people are still fascinated by the concept.
As an anthropological study? Undoubtedly fascinating. Theology? Not so much.People may not be religious anymore but it seems many people are still fascinated by the concept.
Without it there would be one less stressful thing for me to have to disagree with my family about.
When your mother is Church of England and has spent many years looking forward to you and your bother having 'big church weddings' only to be really upset when they both turn round and say you are atheists and are not getting married in churches, that kind of upsets an otherwise parents and causes arguments.
And my parents are only mildly/casually religious, I can't imagine how bad it is for those from staunchly religious families. It must literally be Hell, pardon the pun.
I suspect religion causes many people a lot of angst in their lives at one point or another, and that it why it's such a hot topic for many.
Robertj21a said:
Efbe said:
generally speaking, for 99% of the population, people need to have a belief.
The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
It's rare for me to say it but I couldn't agree with you less. Totally ridiculous comments.The move from christianity to atheism is not just a removal of this need for a belief, the belief has changed to science.
Most people that say religion is nonsense will put their faith in scientific laws and theories of which they have no concept, and are just as alien to them as the idea of a divine ruler.
Therefore science has just become another religion. people need to believe in something. The only problem is that science does not inherently come with a nice moral rulebook, of which the major religions did come with, no matter how badly they were interpreted/implemented.
The point being... I do not think for the vast majority of people you can remove religion. It needs to be replaced with something else. Another religion.
In attempting to remove it, you will bolster the arguement and push towards something else.
There is continual denial that belief in scientific theory and practice does involve an element of dogma and faith.
I've always argued that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
gadgetmac said:
Can you show me an example of that please? I've been here a while and not seen any instances of it. This argument is one thats always rolled out to discredit Atheism and now that you've said it I'd like to see your 'evidence'. Nobody is worshipping at any altars of science from what I can see. Science is science and religion is not. One doesn't supplant the other, evidence based truth does however replace ignorance and superstition.
I'll explain again.......... I am not trying to discredit atheism, I'm not sure anybody here is, and nobody is trying to discredit science. All a few of us have highlighted is that some non-theists seem to have latched on to science as their cause and their justification in a way that is no different to the way that some religious people go about their business. That means without full understanding of what they support, dogmatically and without question.You use the term 'evidence based truth', that's evidence of my point.
Derek Smith said:
The decline of the various abrahamic religions might well bring with it a much preferable set of morals. Equal treatment of women, the acceptance that homosexuals are doing nothing wrong, the wish to constrain, the belief in a section of the community being the only ones who go to heaven, the rest to permanent torture (really quite repellent); all these have a basis in abrahamic religions.
The idea that atheism is a belief system was invented by theists in order to attack those who were not theists. You can, of course, be atheistic without trusting the scientific method. The two do not go together in the same way as, for instance, abrahamic religions and oppression. To accept the scientific method as the best way of explaining 'things' does not preclude a belief in a deity.
I think the scientific method is a great way to define the universe, from the ever so big to the ever so small, but I know that most, if not all, of the theories I believe today will be replaced/substantially modified in the short/medium term. That's what makes it so strong and exciting. However, it is obviously possible for a better way to interpret the universe to exist. That we don't know of it now, or perhaps yet, doesn't make it impossible. When it comes, then it will be accepted by some immediately but others later. It might, or might not, replace the scientific method. However, one should not stick with the old method just because a supernatural being might be upset.
I am not an atheist in the sense that I'm a member of a club. I just don't believe in any religion because they are palpably man-made. I'd suggest there might be something that could, with a stretch of logic, be called a god, but not one that is bothered about, inter alia, the gender of a person I sleep with. Any one/thing that pathetic is not entitled to be called a god. To me that goes even past farcical.
Believe what you like, I don't care, but don't pervade society with horrible beliefs, such as women being inferior and all the rest. Keep out of my life. And death. And don't bugger alter boys.
The negative effects of religion is what generates my posts. Oh, and the fact that my taxes support them.
I am not a class of person just because I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.
My thoughts exactly put better than what I could.The idea that atheism is a belief system was invented by theists in order to attack those who were not theists. You can, of course, be atheistic without trusting the scientific method. The two do not go together in the same way as, for instance, abrahamic religions and oppression. To accept the scientific method as the best way of explaining 'things' does not preclude a belief in a deity.
I think the scientific method is a great way to define the universe, from the ever so big to the ever so small, but I know that most, if not all, of the theories I believe today will be replaced/substantially modified in the short/medium term. That's what makes it so strong and exciting. However, it is obviously possible for a better way to interpret the universe to exist. That we don't know of it now, or perhaps yet, doesn't make it impossible. When it comes, then it will be accepted by some immediately but others later. It might, or might not, replace the scientific method. However, one should not stick with the old method just because a supernatural being might be upset.
I am not an atheist in the sense that I'm a member of a club. I just don't believe in any religion because they are palpably man-made. I'd suggest there might be something that could, with a stretch of logic, be called a god, but not one that is bothered about, inter alia, the gender of a person I sleep with. Any one/thing that pathetic is not entitled to be called a god. To me that goes even past farcical.
Believe what you like, I don't care, but don't pervade society with horrible beliefs, such as women being inferior and all the rest. Keep out of my life. And death. And don't bugger alter boys.
The negative effects of religion is what generates my posts. Oh, and the fact that my taxes support them.
I am not a class of person just because I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.
ATG said:
A quick illustration of the "science as a religion" style of unscientific thought:
If you asked someone "do you put your faith in religion or science?" a lot of people will say "science" when they should really be saying "that's a daft question".
Exactly. For example it is possible that someone be spiritual and interested in the scientific method. If you asked someone "do you put your faith in religion or science?" a lot of people will say "science" when they should really be saying "that's a daft question".
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No conflict here.We use the scientific method to work out the mechanisms of things but it cannot be used to help us understand if there is any meaning to what happens or any reason behind it.
I think that is the fundamental error that some pseudo-scientific opponents of religion and spirituality make.
The second error is to apply their faith in the power of science with slavish abandon. They don't show understanding of the concepts they champion, they act dogmatically, they don't seem to be very good at critical analysis. It marks them out as being the mirror image of the religious examples they make. The majority of people in this world seem to be able to accept that religious faith/spirituality/theism and science can coexist, can be shared and respected simultaneously, both offering something the other cannot. I would argue that the type of person who does think that science is somehow a thing that challenges religion, and must rule supreme, shares many personality traits with religious fundamentalists.
///ajd said:
Yes, the disgusting things are also human nature - and these are also reflected in religion through the ages.
Has religion really made people "treat others how you would be treated" etc.? I think that is far more fundamental instinct that is learned through every day nature experience and nil credit need be given to religion - its a myth pushed & indoctrinated by the church.
Religion has certainly helped preserve discrimination against women and gays etc. - that persists to this day. Where are the morals there? That's centuries of repression and flawed morals that keeps parts of the society still rooted in the dark ages.
Turning the other cheek is not necessarily against human nature at all - this is also natural and potentially evolutionary. Revenge carries risk and waste of resources; survival rates would be higher if you turn the other cheek. Many atheists turn the other cheek - what can that have to do with religion?
You are letting your prejudices cloud your judgement. You make a highly illogical statement when you say that religion cannot take any credit for nurturing the 'treat others as you wish to be treated' approach because that trait is, you believe, inherent and primordial, but must be held responsible for the perpetuation of discrimination against women and homosexuals. Is gender inequality and rejection of things that don't fit the norm not also an inherent trait of mankind? So how, scientifically, have you deduced this? Or is it just that your M.O is that nothing good can come of religion, only bad? Has religion really made people "treat others how you would be treated" etc.? I think that is far more fundamental instinct that is learned through every day nature experience and nil credit need be given to religion - its a myth pushed & indoctrinated by the church.
Religion has certainly helped preserve discrimination against women and gays etc. - that persists to this day. Where are the morals there? That's centuries of repression and flawed morals that keeps parts of the society still rooted in the dark ages.
Turning the other cheek is not necessarily against human nature at all - this is also natural and potentially evolutionary. Revenge carries risk and waste of resources; survival rates would be higher if you turn the other cheek. Many atheists turn the other cheek - what can that have to do with religion?
lionelf said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
People who believe in Science "don't seem to be very good at critical analysis"? Yet the spiritual are?I think I've heard it all now.
I/we are talking about certain people, particularly prevalent on PH it appears, who seize upon science as their basis and their justification or their guide. Also particularly about the way they seize upon it and hold onto it without really understanding or questioning it, how very similar this is to those that need theist religious fundamentalism. It's probably because they can't deal with uncertainty and unknowns so they think that 'what scientists say' gives them the certainty they need. The truth is you don't need anything to justify or explain atheism.
XJ40 said:
I more or less agree with what you're saying there.
I'll add though that I think we can make a vague distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion often has arbitary doctrine/dogma that is less compatible with our scientific understanding, sometimes contary to what is now accepted in the consensus reality. Whereas various spirtual belief particularly new agey ones can be less obviously falsifiable, particularly if arrising from personal experience as opposed to acceptance of a given text.
For me it often boils down to whether one is a materialist or dualist. Whether you consider consciousness to be an emergent property of a deterministic physcial system (quite possible precluding free-will), or whether you consider consciousness or the soul as it were to have a metaphysical origin... or at least one that isn't understood by todays sciences...
I agree that dogma of any variety is counterproductive to humankind.I'll add though that I think we can make a vague distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion often has arbitary doctrine/dogma that is less compatible with our scientific understanding, sometimes contary to what is now accepted in the consensus reality. Whereas various spirtual belief particularly new agey ones can be less obviously falsifiable, particularly if arrising from personal experience as opposed to acceptance of a given text.
For me it often boils down to whether one is a materialist or dualist. Whether you consider consciousness to be an emergent property of a deterministic physcial system (quite possible precluding free-will), or whether you consider consciousness or the soul as it were to have a metaphysical origin... or at least one that isn't understood by todays sciences...
Edited by XJ40 on Thursday 26th May 17:31
There will always be the discussion between dualists, monists and the materialists. It's a bloody big question and very hard to answer, will it ever be? The concept of materialism is to me, although a perfectly fair and viable scenario, quite sad. I'd like to imagine there's more to existence than just physical interactions although that imagining might just be the result of physical interactions that have nothing to do with free will.
Derek Smith said:
Odd question. We are currently living in a world where there is so much knowledge that we have no idea of. It's always been that way.
If someone said there were giant creatures 65m years ago before it was a science, the first question to ask them is how does he/she know. It is the only sensible response. If the person says: it has been revealed to me on golden tablets which I lost, then the sensible response is not to believe it. If the person found massive fossilised bones, then it would be intriguing and some would accept the possibility, at least if they were scientists who didn't believe in magic.
To support my contention then I'd bring in dark matter/dark energy. These 'forces' can only only deduced by their effects. What we have is a situation similar to gravity. It existed but we only knew because of its effects. No one has a bottle of it.
Now for a magic being who is not governed by her own rules one would have to ask where the evidence is. The explanation, that some god made the heavens and earth in days covers the points, and if you want to believe that, fair enough. But the logic is not for magic and magic doesn't happen nowadays and nor is there any evidence that it has ever happened.
That there is a god who knows everything and takes a day to day interest and seeing every sparrow's fall has nothing to support it. Dawkins mentions a child who was imprisoned by her father and then raped time and time again. There was other matters with that child which were, remarkably, even worse. Why did this god allow it to go on? It is not mysterious, it is criminal.
But believe what you want. I don't care if you accept magic as real, and agree with the gibberish of those who wanted to control others. You do what you want. Just don't do it in a manner that can affect me.
Unfortunately the religious cults do affect me and mine and that irritates me.
If train spotters can do their thing without bothering me, why can't those who believe myths?
To be fair Derek, the way you preach your rhetoric affects me a lot more than my personal faith affects you. So please believe what you want as long as it causes me no bother. You harp on about making sure others don't bother you but you don't practise what you preach when you talk about the manner that affects others. Your answer given, however, explains that you are one that needs certainty and cannot handle the unknown.If someone said there were giant creatures 65m years ago before it was a science, the first question to ask them is how does he/she know. It is the only sensible response. If the person says: it has been revealed to me on golden tablets which I lost, then the sensible response is not to believe it. If the person found massive fossilised bones, then it would be intriguing and some would accept the possibility, at least if they were scientists who didn't believe in magic.
To support my contention then I'd bring in dark matter/dark energy. These 'forces' can only only deduced by their effects. What we have is a situation similar to gravity. It existed but we only knew because of its effects. No one has a bottle of it.
Now for a magic being who is not governed by her own rules one would have to ask where the evidence is. The explanation, that some god made the heavens and earth in days covers the points, and if you want to believe that, fair enough. But the logic is not for magic and magic doesn't happen nowadays and nor is there any evidence that it has ever happened.
That there is a god who knows everything and takes a day to day interest and seeing every sparrow's fall has nothing to support it. Dawkins mentions a child who was imprisoned by her father and then raped time and time again. There was other matters with that child which were, remarkably, even worse. Why did this god allow it to go on? It is not mysterious, it is criminal.
But believe what you want. I don't care if you accept magic as real, and agree with the gibberish of those who wanted to control others. You do what you want. Just don't do it in a manner that can affect me.
Unfortunately the religious cults do affect me and mine and that irritates me.
If train spotters can do their thing without bothering me, why can't those who believe myths?
You don't pose a challenge Derek. There is no issue with questioning each other if it is appropriate and thoughtful.
It was a comment about your general attitude and preachy nature to encourage a little self reflection on your behalf. Once again I think you share many traits with religious fundamentalists. A conservative, hardline, jihadist Muslim would think the Western lifestyle is evil and needs to be erased. They pick up issues such as the particularly negative aspects of alcohol use and sexual attitudes as justification for their opinion that it's all bad. There are problems with alcohol, there are problems with sexual attitudes in some cases but actually alcohol can be beneficial in some respects and our approach to sexuality can be liberating. On the whole there are many good things about life in the West, but the hardliners do not want to accept that and cannot see it. That is how you, and a select few are about religion. When you think we say that you are treating science or atheism as a religion your prejudices about the term 'religion' blind you to what we really mean. It's the manner in which you apply and adhere to your opinions that highlights the similarities between you and religious zealots. You spend all your time pursuing your distaste for them, aiming your comments at people simply because they might have an element of spirituality or faith in their lives, all the time you've spent doing this you've never realised that you are no better than what it is you are attacking.
It was a comment about your general attitude and preachy nature to encourage a little self reflection on your behalf. Once again I think you share many traits with religious fundamentalists. A conservative, hardline, jihadist Muslim would think the Western lifestyle is evil and needs to be erased. They pick up issues such as the particularly negative aspects of alcohol use and sexual attitudes as justification for their opinion that it's all bad. There are problems with alcohol, there are problems with sexual attitudes in some cases but actually alcohol can be beneficial in some respects and our approach to sexuality can be liberating. On the whole there are many good things about life in the West, but the hardliners do not want to accept that and cannot see it. That is how you, and a select few are about religion. When you think we say that you are treating science or atheism as a religion your prejudices about the term 'religion' blind you to what we really mean. It's the manner in which you apply and adhere to your opinions that highlights the similarities between you and religious zealots. You spend all your time pursuing your distaste for them, aiming your comments at people simply because they might have an element of spirituality or faith in their lives, all the time you've spent doing this you've never realised that you are no better than what it is you are attacking.
otolith said:
How does Derek holding and expressing his views affect you? Either you agree with his reasoning or you don't. You've yet to make a theist argument which troubles me, is that my problem or yours?
That's your problem. My main concern is not to preach theism but simply to highlight the hypocrisy and irony in the manner in which certain PHers pursue their anti-religious and pro-atheist agendas. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff