What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Religion is Disappearing. That's Great for Politics. (1 Viewer)

whoknew

Footballguy
Pretty long article, but well worth reading. Some highlights:

Before the rise of the religious right in the 1980s, most politicians kept their faith to themselves. In 1945, for example, President Harry Truman wrote: “I’m not very much impressed with men who publicly parade their religious beliefs.” After his election in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower joined a Presbyterian church, but when he heard the minister was publicly boasting about his new member the general commanded, “You go and tell that ###### minister that if he gives out one more story about my religious faith I will not join his ###### church!” John F. Kennedy discussed his Catholicism only when forced to do so by critics during the 1960 presidential campaign. In a 1964 interview with the Baptist Standard, President Lyndon Johnson explained, “I believe in the American tradition of separation of church and state which is expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.” Richard Nixon was famously a Quaker, but what he practiced can best be described as religious expediency—whatever worked politically. Gerald Ford called his religiosity “very personal” and wrote, “I am most reluctant to speak or write about it publicly.” Even the openly evangelical Christian Jimmy Carter prioritized his piety below that of most political issues.

--

Those days might be over. To those of us who are atheists, agnostics or “spiritual but not religious,” and who prefer to keep the Constitution and the Bible in separate drawers, the Pew Research Center has recently published data from a massive representative survey of 35,000 adult Americans, revealing that the fastest growing religious cohort in America are the “nones”—those who check the box for “no religious affiliation.” Such unaffiliated numbers have been climbing steadily out of the single-digit cellar in the 1990s into a now respectable two-digit 23 percent of adults of all ages, up from 16 percent just since 2007. More telling for politicians who cater their campaigns toward younger voters, 34 percent of millennials—those born after 1981, and the nation’s largest living generation—profess to having no religion. A third! That’s a viable voting bloc.


It is really the raw numbers that should give pause to any politician or candidate contemplating ignoring this voting bloc. There are today about 245 million adult Americans. This translates into 56 million religiously unaffiliated adults of all ages, more than either mainline Protestants or Catholics and second only to evangelical Protestants. This translates into 19 million more people who have no religion just since 2007, an encouraging trend for those who have grown weary of America’s slide toward theocracy.

--

Yes, of course, most Jews and Christians today are not nearly so narrowly tribal as their Old Testament ancestors, but why? It is not because of some new divine revelation or biblical interpretation. The reason is that Judaism and Christianity went through the Enlightenment and came out the other side less violent and more tolerant. Ever since the Enlightenment, the study of morality has shifted from considering moral principles as based on God-given, divinely-inspired, Holy book-derived, authority-dictated precepts from the top down, to bottom-up individual-considered, reason-based, rationality-constructed, science-grounded propositions in which one is expected to have reasons for one’s moral actions, especially reasons that consider the other person affected by the moral act.

 
I am an agnostic, but I'll introduce Sherwahhatever to Thomas Jefferson.

"…endowed by their Creator…"

A simplistic article, written with a simplistic worldview.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am an agnostic, but I'll introduce Sherwahhatever to Thomas Jefferson.

"endowed by their Creator"

A simplistic article, written with a simplistic worldview.
Jefferson chose those words to emphasize the view that human rights are not (British) government created, not to establish a religious state or to espouse his own personal religious beliefs
 
I am an agnostic, but I'll introduce Sherwahhatever to Thomas Jefferson.

"endowed by their Creator"

A simplistic article, written with a simplistic worldview.
Jefferson chose those words to emphasize the view that human rights are not (British) government created, not to establish a religious state or to espouse his own personal religious beliefs
I'm not arguing for a religious state nor to advocate personal religious beliefs. I am stating, and limiting myself to, the notion that a disappearance of religion from the political sphere as a good thing entirely is a simplistic and silly statement.

If not government-created, these rights, whence? We can safely assume, I think, that Jefferson appealed to God as the ultimate source of inalienable rights because God is the most solid ground upon which one can claim rights.

 
I am an agnostic, but I'll introduce Sherwahhatever to Thomas Jefferson.

"…endowed by their Creator…"

A simplistic article, written with a simplistic worldview.
I hear he was also fond of slaves.
True. Also...

I am glad to cite the opinion of Jefferson upon this subject rather than that of any other, because I consider him the most powerful advocate democracy has ever had. - Alexis de Tocqueville

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FWIW, Thomas Jefferson's views on religion were nuanced, complicated, and thoroughly at odds with the mainstream Christianity of his time. Though this is a Wikipedia link, the first few paragraphs (heavily annotated for further reading) of this page are a helpful summary.

If there is a spectrum between modern-day Deism and agnosticism, Jefferson would likely fall somewhere in the middle.

 
Our basic human rights are granted unto us by our fellow man. I won't kill you if you won't kill me. Basic common sense that makes the world go round. No deity required.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.

 
I am an agnostic, but I'll introduce Sherwahhatever to Thomas Jefferson.

"endowed by their Creator"

A simplistic article, written with a simplistic worldview.
Jefferson chose those words to emphasize the view that human rights are not (British) government created, not to establish a religious state or to espouse his own personal religious beliefs
I'm not arguing for a religious state nor to advocate personal religious beliefs. I am stating, and limiting myself to, the notion that a disappearance of religion from the political sphere as a good thing entirely is a simplistic and silly statement.

If not government-created, these rights, whence? We can safely assume, I think, that Jefferson appealed to God as the ultimate source of inalienable rights because God is the most solid ground upon which one can claim rights.
I'd be surprised if that's why Jefferson used that language for almost the exact opposite reason - I can't imagine a less solid ground upon which one can claim rights than a deity.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
This...most people in my circles do not even know that I am atheist, and when/if they find out, they are usually surprised. I am not looking to spread anything. Live and let live! When people start passing laws and dictating policy with a religious agenda it is problematic.

ETA: If there is one thing I am guilty of trying to "spread", it is critical thinking skills. This is why I teach. I want people to be able to think, analyze, and make decisions that are informed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Looking to ensure that others don't look to legal means by which to force their religious view on others is not at all the same as trying to convince others of your own view.

It amazes me how this point doesn't seem to resonate with so many. It's not that different than the "oh you are tolerant but wont tolerate others limiting a groups rights? Hypocrisy!

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
Well if you don't see it as being a good example, that must be true.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
How about lawmakers that want to put Bibles in classrooms? Or mandate the teaching of creationism along side evolution? And why not use gay marriage as an example? Isn't the religious aspect commonly used against it? Or abortion?

 
I am an agnostic, but I'll introduce Sherwahhatever to Thomas Jefferson.

"endowed by their Creator"

A simplistic article, written with a simplistic worldview.
Jefferson chose those words to emphasize the view that human rights are not (British) government created, not to establish a religious state or to espouse his own personal religious beliefs
I'm not arguing for a religious state nor to advocate personal religious beliefs. I am stating, and limiting myself to, the notion that a disappearance of religion from the political sphere as a good thing entirely is a simplistic and silly statement.

If not government-created, these rights, whence? We can safely assume, I think, that Jefferson appealed to God as the ultimate source of inalienable rights because God is the most solid ground upon which one can claim rights.
I'd be surprised if that's why Jefferson used that language for almost the exact opposite reason - I can't imagine a less solid ground upon which one can claim rights than a deity.
The phrase I quoted actually came from Franklin, now that I look into it. "Nature and Nature's God" came from Jefferson. Regardless, I think the bolded statement above would be an erroneous one. I'm sure Jefferson and Franklin and the other drafters were aware of the transient nature and easy revocation of rights when rights are granted by and vested in men alone. Hence, the stress on the universality of the rights mentioned, the self-evident nature of the rights, and the unalienability of the rights. We can't even give the rights back, nor abandon them if we choose to, because they're universal, they exist outside of any positive law, and they're God-given.

To an atheist or one with a modern prejudice about religion, sure, God seems like a flimsy horse to hitch one's wagon to. But considering what the Enlightenment authors knew about history and men, it was the best they could do.

I can look it up further if you'd like. Maybe I'll learn something in the process.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Religion is not "disappearing"
It's in decline.

Charity and charitable giving is up across the board in every category but religion where it's been on a slow decline for a decade.

What's even more troubling is religious people are donating MORE than they used to as a group and yet still religion is losing market share at the till to basically every other cause imaginable. So you have a case where there less religious people and the ones that are still religious are taking their money elsewhere. This is a toxic situation.

Just need to follow the dollars.

 
FWIW, religion won't - and IMO Can't - disappear. I believe we are hardwired to almost demand religion and faith to fill in the blanks of logic and understanding, especially as it relates to the questions of: why are we here, what is our purpose, what happens when we die, is there a greater meaning or common existential thread.

That said, religion does and always has, evolved. Perhaps the dogmatic and controlling western religious philosophy - that, let's be honest, has been co-opted for centuries if not millennia to justify those who have little "worth" in this mortal span but have a hope for a "greater meaning" -through religion, redemption, an afterlife and/or being a part of a greater cause and existential reality - are more history than future.

Question is will we evolve into a completely different - or even somewhat different - religious framework or merely a new perspective on the religions that currently dominate philosophy, thought and life.

 
FWIW, religion won't - and IMO Can't - disappear. I believe we are hardwired to almost demand religion and faith to fill in the blanks of logic and understanding....
If we're just talking about the USA....

1. Youre right, it will probably never completely disappear. There will always be "flat earthers". And I'm sure it will continue to exist in certain closed communities. But eventually non-believers will be the majority.

2. Not sure what "the blanks of logic and understanding" means. But ultimately most people in our society will not look to the supernatural for explanations.

 
FWIW, religion won't - and IMO Can't - disappear. I believe we are hardwired to almost demand religion and faith to fill in the blanks of logic and understanding....
If we're just talking about the USA....1. Youre right, it will probably never completely disappear. There will always be "flat earthers". And I'm sure it will continue to exist in certain closed communities. But eventually non-believers will be the majority.

2. Not sure what "the blanks of logic and understanding" means. But ultimately most people in our society will not look to the supernatural for explanations.
1. I am talking about modern humanity - to think this is just a U.S. Phenomenonot issue is short sighted. And what do flat earthers have to do with this? Plenty of room to be devoted to faith without denying actual facts.

2. That said, all the facts at our disposal still leave the MOST important questions utterly unanswered. Again: why are we here, as a collective or as individuals; what is our purpose?; what happens when we die?; do we really have free will or is this a greater predestined plan?

So, unless/until all of these existential questions are answered, faith provides a bridge from the known and understood to the most important but completely unanswered questions. That, IMO, is one of if not the most important rationales we, as individuals, need to "believe" due to faith in the illogical. Let's be honest, the known "natural" is so far from being sufficient in answering these most basis of Human questions that faith is the ONLY answer for those who have an undying Human desire to answer the questions and fill in the blanks:

Where logic can not answer what we need to know, faith completes by "filling in the blanks"

 
FWIW, religion won't - and IMO Can't - disappear. I believe we are hardwired to almost demand religion and faith to fill in the blanks of logic and understanding....
If we're just talking about the USA....1. Youre right, it will probably never completely disappear. There will always be "flat earthers". And I'm sure it will continue to exist in certain closed communities. But eventually non-believers will be the majority.

2. Not sure what "the blanks of logic and understanding" means. But ultimately most people in our society will not look to the supernatural for explanations.
1. I am talking about modern humanity - to think this is just a U.S. Phenomenonot issue is short sighted. And what do flat earthers have to do with this? Plenty of room to be devoted to faith without denying actual facts.
Yeaaaaaaah...this is where I stopped reading.

 
FWIW, religion won't - and IMO Can't - disappear. I believe we are hardwired to almost demand religion and faith to fill in the blanks of logic and understanding....
If we're just talking about the USA....1. Youre right, it will probably never completely disappear. There will always be "flat earthers". And I'm sure it will continue to exist in certain closed communities. But eventually non-believers will be the majority.

2. Not sure what "the blanks of logic and understanding" means. But ultimately most people in our society will not look to the supernatural for explanations.
1. I am talking about modern humanity - to think this is just a U.S. Phenomenonot issue is short sighted. And what do flat earthers have to do with this? Plenty of room to be devoted to faith without denying actual facts.

2. That said, all the facts at our disposal still leave the MOST important questions utterly unanswered. Again: why are we here, as a collective or as individuals; what is our purpose?; what happens when we die?; do we really have free will or is this a greater predestined plan?

So, unless/until all of these existential questions are answered, faith provides a bridge from the known and understood to the most important but completely unanswered questions. That, IMO, is one of if not the most important rationales we, as individuals, need to "believe" due to faith in the illogical. Let's be honest, the known "natural" is so far from being sufficient in answering these most basis of Human questions that faith is the ONLY answer for those who have an undying Human desire to answer the questions and fill in the blanks:

Where logic can not answer what we need to know, faith completes by "filling in the blanks"
No, it is not an answer at all. It simply the "easy" way out. Why can't people be comfortable with the realization that we don't have all the answers? Instead of filling the void with faith, accept the idea of a void and keep searching for legitimate answers. When people buy into God/religion as the answer, they quit looking. It stifles thinking. No need to look anymore...I faith...end of story. Of course, science does not have the answers, but it offers a meaningful, logical approach at moving towards those answers. We may never get to those answers, but It offers the only methodology that gives the possibility of answering questions.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
How about lawmakers that want to put Bibles in classrooms? Or mandate the teaching of creationism along side evolution? And why not use gay marriage as an example? Isn't the religious aspect commonly used against it? Or abortion?
These are being passed? :confused:

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
How about lawmakers that want to put Bibles in classrooms? Or mandate the teaching of creationism along side evolution? And why not use gay marriage as an example? Isn't the religious aspect commonly used against it? Or abortion?
These are being passed? :confused:
Texas, Louisiana & Tennessee already allow creationism and the book of Genesis in public schools. Idaho has a bill advancing now to allow the Bible in science class.

Map of creationism in public schools

 
Where logic can not answer what we need to know, faith completes by "filling in the blanks"
"I don't know" works just fine for me. :shrug:
I believe that is a the general exception although a fairly common one. Fin fine not knowing - well that's a lie as I hate it but can't just believe some ridiculous fairy tale and say it's all good.

Most however when faced with this existential question must have "some" answer and faith is theirs, coo out or not

 
Here’s a prime example of the old maxim “be careful what you wish for”

It’s beginning to look a lot like a Satanic Christmas in Michigan
For reasons I’ve never been able to understand, Christians are always trying to get their religious displays on Government property around this time of year. They claim it’s not because they’re trying to foist their religion on everyone else or to imply that the Government favors their particular religion and everyone knows they’re lying and that’s totally what they want.

They have a problem, however, with that damned pesky Constitution amendment saying that the government is supposed to be neutral about religion resulting in various court rulings over the years that have basically said: Sure, you can put your nativity scene on the lawn of your state capitol/courthouse/city hall/other random government building so long as you allow other religions to offer up displays if they want to. To their great luck for many, many years the only other group that would ask were the Jews so they could slap up a menorah and pretend they were complying with the law. Hell, half the time they’d slap one up even if the Jews didn’t ask because they thought it was fooling everyone into thinking they were being all diverse and ####.

Recently, however, there’s been an increasing tendency for people with other, yucky, religions — or, GASP, no religion at all — of asking to put up their own displays alongside the Christian ones. Needless to say this has caused all manner of hand wringing with some state and local governments deciding they should probably get out of the whole religious display business and banning them from government property (as they should). This came to a head this year as The Satanic Temple has been particularly active in getting permission for displays in Oklahoma (since put on hold due to the destruction of the Christian Ten Commandments display it was meant to offset) and in Florida’s Capitol holiday display.

Here in Michigan we’ve been stuck under a Republican led state congress (both houses) and governorship for several years now thanks to the gerrymandering they managed to get in place during the last census. They like to think they’re pretty smart for having pulled that off so they put their thinking caps on and tried to come up with a way to allow a nativity scene in our capitol while keeping those other, yucky, religions out. What they came up with was a new requirement of no permanent displays. More specifically, any display you put up in the Michigan State Capitol has to be torn down at the end of the day and then put back up the next morning. Surely a rule this tedious would keep out all but the most devout Christians, right?

Satanic holiday display is coming to Capitol

The display, which depicts a snake wrapped around the Satanic cross presenting a book as a holiday gift, will be featured on the northeast lawn at the Capitol Dec. 21 to 23, said Jex Blackmore, a member of the Detroit chapter of the Satanic Temple. The cross reads, “The greatest gift is knowledge.”

“Encouraging families to have important discussions and to learn from each other and to spend the holidays promoting knowledge … is just something we think is important,” Blackmore, whose phone number begins with the digits 666, said today.

[…] Blackmore said her group requested the display after the Capitol Commission last month received a request for a Christian Nativity to be displayed at the Capitol. With lame-duck lawmakers debating a controversial religious freedom bill, Blackmore said the Satanist display “provides some poignant commentary about the diversity of beliefs represented by Michigan citizens.”

Oops. The folks at the Detroit chapter of The Satanic Temple have someone who is more than willing to comply by the rule of putting it up in the morning and taking it down at night and repeating the process the next day.

Here's what it will look like.
Here’s what it will look like. What a horrible message to convey! They want you to be smart!

That’s not the best part of this story, though. This is:

The Nativity, meanwhile, has been scrapped. Truscott said today the Nativity was approved but the out-of-state person backing it couldn’t find someone to put up and tear down the display each day. That’s necessary because Capitol rules forbid permanent displays.

Truscott said the person behind the Nativity, who hasn’t been named, is still trying to find someone to manage the display.

Cue the outrage from the government flunky who had to approve it:

John Truscott, a member of the Michigan State Capitol Commission, which approved the display, said the commission had to OK it because members were “constrained by the Constitution” and must “recognize everybody’s First Amendment rights.”

But Truscott added, “Personally, I think this is absolutely repulsive and I’m very frustrated by it. I don’t appreciate a group trying to hijack a Christian holiday.”

#### you, John Truscott. I don’t appreciate Christians trying to hijack my government to promote themselves. Don’t want a Satanic holiday display at the capitol? Then don’t allow any religious displays at the ####### capitol. It’s really very simple. If you allow one then you have to allow them all and if your prefered group is too ####### lazy to follow the rules you put in place to try and prevent others from participating, well, that’s their ####### problem. Besides, it’s not like the Christians didn’t hijack this holiday from the Pagans to begin with.


Here’s the cherry on top of this cake. Hemant Mehta over at The Friendly Atheist reached out to The Satanic Temple spokesperson about this news story and got the following awesome comment from them:

When Jex first reached out to the Capitol Commission to learn how she could submit our display, she refrained from mentioning that she is a representative of the dreaded Satanic Temple.

Jex was told at that time that the new requirement for holiday displays (that they be taken down each evening and replaced again in the morning) was a result of trying to deter “that group from Florida” — clearly a reference to The Satanic Temple — winning the right to exhibit our holiday display in the Florida Capitol Rotunda.

That’s right. The rule that makes this delicious bit of schadenfreude possible was specifically meant to keep The Satanic Temple out of the Michigan capitol. It’s a mistake to assume your followers are less lazy than any other religion’s followers.


I’m guessing that as this story goes viral the out-of-state ####### who wants to put a nativity at the state capitol will find someone willing to put it up and take it down every day if for no other reason than to ensure the Satanic display isn’t the only one there. Christians get mad when they have to share with other religions as it is. They sure as hell aren’t going to sit by and let some other group, especially Satanists, have the spotlight to themselves. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see the rules change again next year.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Maybe because for many of us, this is our only outlet. Despite the growing numbers of non-religious, it's still very difficult to be an "out" atheist in many communities. A message board gives us a forum to share our thoughts and ideas, whereas the traditional religious folk get to talk about their faith whenever and wherever they want.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
How about lawmakers that want to put Bibles in classrooms? Or mandate the teaching of creationism along side evolution? And why not use gay marriage as an example? Isn't the religious aspect commonly used against it? Or abortion?
Women's reproductive rights in general. Also gay rights in general. Also the ridiculously stupid abstinence-only sex ed programs.

 
FWIW, religion won't - and IMO Can't - disappear. I believe we are hardwired to almost demand religion and faith to fill in the blanks of logic and understanding....
If we're just talking about the USA....1. Youre right, it will probably never completely disappear. There will always be "flat earthers". And I'm sure it will continue to exist in certain closed communities. But eventually non-believers will be the majority.

2. Not sure what "the blanks of logic and understanding" means. But ultimately most people in our society will not look to the supernatural for explanations.
1. I am talking about modern humanity - to think this is just a U.S. Phenomenonot issue is short sighted. And what do flat earthers have to do with this? Plenty of room to be devoted to faith without denying actual facts.

2. That said, all the facts at our disposal still leave the MOST important questions utterly unanswered. Again: why are we here, as a collective or as individuals; what is our purpose?; what happens when we die?; do we really have free will or is this a greater predestined plan?

So, unless/until all of these existential questions are answered, faith provides a bridge from the known and understood to the most important but completely unanswered questions. That, IMO, is one of if not the most important rationales we, as individuals, need to "believe" due to faith in the illogical. Let's be honest, the known "natural" is so far from being sufficient in answering these most basis of Human questions that faith is the ONLY answer for those who have an undying Human desire to answer the questions and fill in the blanks:

Where logic can not answer what we need to know, faith completes by "filling in the blanks"
An exercise of just filling in the blanks of things you admittedly do not know defies any logic. The answer to all three of the existential questions you posed may quite simply be "nothing" which doesn't make them very special at all.

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
Where are all these predominantly atheist countries you speak of?

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
How about lawmakers that want to put Bibles in classrooms? Or mandate the teaching of creationism along side evolution? And why not use gay marriage as an example? Isn't the religious aspect commonly used against it? Or abortion?
These are being passed? :confused:
JFC :lmao:
 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
How about lawmakers that want to put Bibles in classrooms? Or mandate the teaching of creationism along side evolution? And why not use gay marriage as an example? Isn't the religious aspect commonly used against it? Or abortion?
Women's reproductive rights in general. Also gay rights in general. Also the ridiculously stupid abstinence-only sex ed programs.
Right the whole fight against insurance coverage for contraception is because it goes against someone's religion. Which btw, doesn't force anyone to actually use the contraception (which to me would seem to be the actual religious violation - but ya know, let's force our belief on others).

 
I think 99% of proselytizing done on this forum is by atheists. I never understood why atheists are so obsessed with spreading their disbelief, and they seem to be oblivious to the fact they are just as obnoxious and irritating as the lions you use to run into at the airport.
Not to speak for all atheists but the reason atheists are "obsessed with spreading their disbelief" is because Christians keep passing laws that infringe on our rights - using religion as the basis for those laws.

If Christians were more like Ike or Ford or JFK, I don't think atheists would give a ####.
I have no idea what Christian laws are being passed. Can you provide a list of laws being passed. I don't see gay marriage as being a good example either as that is the way it is in virtually every country regardless of the religion or lack thereof.
How about lawmakers that want to put Bibles in classrooms? Or mandate the teaching of creationism along side evolution? And why not use gay marriage as an example? Isn't the religious aspect commonly used against it? Or abortion?
Women's reproductive rights in general. Also gay rights in general. Also the ridiculously stupid abstinence-only sex ed programs.
Word

 
Can't wait for this year's War on Christmas!!! It's gonna be a bloodbath!
Why wait till December when you be faux outraged all year long?

Fox News Fights War On Christmas In June

It may be summertime, but for Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, the War on Christmas is never over.

Carlson is perpetually angry about Festivus, a winter holiday featured on the television program “Seinfeld,” and the possibility of a Festivus pole showing up next to the baby Jesus at Christmas time.

Right Wing Watch reports that in an interview last week on the American Family Radio program “AFA Today,” Carlson repeated her strong stance against Festivus, by arguing that the “sacrilegious” holiday “denigrates Christianity.”

Carlson told host Kevin McCullough that a Festivus pole display in the Washington state capitol next to a Christmas tree was “outrageous,” adding:

I don’t want to have to drive around, eventually, years gone by with my kids looking at all the Nativity scenes during Christmas time and say, ‘Oh look kids, there’s the baby Jesus, way behind the Festivus pole, you can barely see him.’

Carlson previously explained that she does not want to see a Festivus pole, noting:

I’m all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th.

Festivus is a tongue-in-cheek secular holiday celebrated by those frustrated with the commercial and religious pressure surrounding the Christmas season.

Festivus includes an aluminum “Festivus pole,” practices such as the “Airing of Grievances” and “Feats of Strength,” and the labeling of easily explainable events as “Festivus miracles.”

Festivus was created by writer Dan O’Keefe and introduced into popular culture by his son Daniel, a screenwriter for the TV show Seinfeld. The original Festivus took place in February 1966. Festivus is now celebrated on December 23, as depicted on the December 18, 1997 Seinfeld episode, “The Strike.”

 
How about lawmakers that want to put Bibles in classrooms? Or mandate the teaching of creationism along side evolution? And why not use gay marriage as an example? Isn't the religious aspect commonly used against it? Or abortion?
These are being passed? :confused:
Yes?

Louisiana Teachers Are Using The Bible in Science Class

A freedom of information request has confirmed what activists have been warning for years, the bible is being used in high school science classrooms to promote creationism. Since the passing of the controversial Louisiana Science Education Act in 2008, teachers have been allowed to “critique” evolution using supplementary materials.

“There are no legitimate scientific critiques of evolution, and the purpose of this law is for teaching creationism,” Zack Kopplin tells IFLScience. “Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who signed the Science Education Act, was asked by NBC’s Education Nation about the law, and explained that he signed it because it allowed creationism into public schools.”

Kopplin has been heavily campaigning to have the law repealed since he was a high school student. He has written extensively on the subject, detailing evidence of creationism in at least eight school districts in Louisiana. After sending several freedom of information requests, he has discovered more damning evidence.

One teacher sent the following email to their principle:

You wanted me to let you know when I was planning the Creation point of view. I will be doing this on Monday 3/21. The students will actually be doing most of the presenting. We will read in Genesis and them some supplemental material debunking various aspects of evolution from which the students will present.

The same principal received a PowerPoint presentation, entitled “Theories on the Origin of Life,” which contained a page that says “Creationism relies on the claim that there is a ‘purpose’ to all creation known only to the creator.”

“In Caddo Parish, one teacher explained that she teaches creationism because ‘God made science.’ In Sabine Parish, a teacher was teaching that evolution was a ‘stupid’ theory that ‘stupid people made up because they don’t want to believe in God,’” Kopplin explains.

In another email entitled “Support from a Bossier teacher,” a 4th grade teacher claims that a woman who was suing their school was told "Welcome to the Bible Belt, m'am." They go on to say: “Anyway, just wanted to tell you that we need more teachers like you and that my great granddaddy wasn't a monkey either!”

Though Kopplin has been able to get 78 Nobel laureates and many other prominent scientists and educators to join him in his campaign, the repeal bill has failed for five consecutive years. He blames this on Louisiana politicians who are either creationists or lack the political courage to “do the right thing.”

During the campaign, Kopplin has had a number of bizzare debates that range from “a Senator who wanted to teach about witch doctors in science class and a Senator who demanded we show him an E. coli metamorphosing into a person in front of him.” One senator who accused scientists of burning people alive for suggesting that the world was round and orbited the sun had to be corrected – that was the Church.

“The religious right wields an incredible amount of power, especially in smaller districts with competitive primaries. One legislator, Senator Conrad Appel, the Chairman of the Louisiana Senate Education Committee, cast the deciding vote to kill our repeal bill this year. Senator Appel isn’t a creationist, but he has pretended that the law does nothing to justify casting a vote against us to himself,” Kopplin tells IFLScience.

“Even after being presented with evidence of creationism being taught in Louisiana public schools, including teachers who are teaching their students that ‘snake leg nubbs’ are proof of creationism, Appel still claimed that the law ‘basically does nothing.’”

The most frustrating aspect of this fight, Kopplin says, is the lack of courage that too many politicians have displayed. He points to a national survey of more than 900 public high school biology teachers, which found that 13% of science teachers across the country are teaching creationism, and another 60% don't endorse evolution or its unscientific alternatives to avoid controversy.

“This means the majority of American students are getting a subpar science education,” Kopplin adds.

While Kopplin has yet to pass his repeal bill, he is pleased that the issue is out to the public. With the published emails from Bossier Parish, showing the Book of Genesis being used in science class, and evidence from many other teachers who are teaching creationism, Kopplin believes a lawsuit is “imminent”.

“I think there is an incredibly strong case built that shows creationism is being taught systematically across Louisiana, and that’s illegal. The courts can and must put a stop to it,” Kopplin tells IFLScience.

He calls on all Louisiana students who have been taught creationism (along with their parents and family members) to contact the ACLU or Freedom From Religion Foundationand challenge the law.

“We need a brave family willing to stand up and use the evidence we’ve discovered to take down the law in court.”

 
Where logic can not answer what we need to know, faith completes by "filling in the blanks"
"I don't know" works just fine for me. :shrug:
I believe that is a the general exception although a fairly common one. Fin fine not knowing - well that's a lie as I hate it but can't just believe some ridiculous fairy tale and say it's all good.

Most however when faced with this existential question must have "some" answer and faith is theirs, coo out or not
I can see that.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top