from the hypocritical-or-just-confused-by-the-survey dept.
Citing a Pew Research survey as well as other sources, Priceonomics reports – with nice charts – that the younger an American is, the more likely is to not have or feel a religious affiliation.
81% of all Americans aged 30 and older, and 88% of American septugenarians (aged 70 and older), identify as Christian. Young Americans, on the other hand, are pretty singularly secular in comparison. Only 68% of adults under 30 identified as Christian. 25% of adults under 30 didn’t affiliate with any religion whatsoever.
Is this just because people tend to get more religious as they get older, or is religion actually on the decline with younger people? According to Pew, today’s young adults reject organized religion at a significantly higher rate than generations before them at their age: In the late 1970s, 13% of Baby Boomers had no religious affiliation; by the late 1990s, 20% of Generation X-ers had no religious affiliation.
The GSS has asked adults the following question for forty years: “What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?” The percentage answering “no religion” was 18 percent two years earlier in 2010, 14 percent in 2000, and 8 percent in 1990. The upward trend in the “no religion” choice is very broad. While some types of Americans identify with an organized religion less than others, Americans in almost every demographic group increasingly claim “no religion” since the trend began to accelerate in 1990. Preferring no religion is not atheism which is still very rare; in 2012, just 3 percent of Americans said they did not believe in God.
Unfortunately, the things appear to me "as clear as mud"; The Atlantic find something interesting in the same data:
There's a curious set of numbers in Pew's new survey about faith and politics.
Seventy-two percent of Americans think religion is losing its influence on public life, while 48 percent think houses of worship should express their views on social and political issues. Since 2010, both of these numbers have grown by at least five percentage points, and they're accompanied by another interesting data point: 41 percent of Americans say there has been "too little expression of religious faith by political leaders," up from 37 percent in 2010.
So, Soylenters, what is your take on it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @09:27AM
[Subset of] Americans Becoming Less Religious, [other subset of Americans] Want More Religious Influence in Politics.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday October 22 2014, @09:41AM
Basically it's polarising, like the rest of America. You're either a Dawkins atheist, or you want a theocracy. The middle ground in the us is not a good place to be.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 22 2014, @11:42AM
"You're either a Dawkins atheist, or you want a theocracy."
More specifically after the neocons took over the R party and kicked out the normal people (which I'm still a little bitter about) they dragged in their evangelical theocracy PR campaign, so when you correct the numbers WRT membership in the neocon Republican party, I suspect the numbers will not be so interesting.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday October 22 2014, @12:32PM
Possible. But who wants more religious influence in politics (sounds like "fundamentalism")? And why? WHat would be the necessary conditions to keep religion outside politics?
Can the US Soylenters cast some lights into this?
Some other links (my attempts to find some reason into the apparent paradox):
* Religious feeling in Europe [wikipedia.org] - the lowest in Czech Republic: 14% believe in God (as such). Also have a look on the contries in West Europe and compare with US - why such a significant discrepancy?
* Church attendance vs Welfare spending [wikimedia.org] - except for tradition (Ireland, Spain), it seem like the more economically secure the population feels, the less inclined to attend church. Is reliance on religion pushed up be fear/insecurity? If so, why the increase of "non-belivers" in US - because I can't imagine life is more economically secure in 2012 vs 2000 vs 1990?
* Republicans vs Democrats religious feeling [christianpost.com]: Republicans - constant between 1987 and 2012 (91% of never doubted the existence of God). Seems like the increased proportion of "non-believers" is coming from the Democrat side ("the proportion of Democrats saying they never doubt the existence of God has dropped 11 percentage points to 77 percent in 2012"). Seems like Democrats continue to become "more liberal", Republicans are becoming more aggressively fundamentalist? Does this hunch of mine have any support in reality?
* trying to see fear/insecurity as a possible factor to drive religiosity [chapman.edu] (see the "Other factors").
Seems consistent with the hypothesis of "Republicans are more likely to peddle religion in politics", but... why? Put the government under control by using religion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:02PM
Possible. But who wants more religious influence in politics (sounds like "fundamentalism")?
There's a lesbian politician in Texas who's trying shut preachers up IN THEIR PULPITS. Personally, I'm against politics in church; I stopped attending one because the idiot was praying for President Bush "to have continued wisdom". That's like praying for continued dryness at the bottom of an ocean.
But I will defend the idiot's right to be an idiot.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:20PM
There's a lesbian politician in Texas who's trying shut preachers up IN THEIR PULPITS.
Political speech from the pulpit, as in urging parishioners to sign a petition for a recall vote, is illegal, [cornell.edu] although such speech is barely ever prosecuted. It is the price of being a non-profit religious organization. The city of Houston initially subpoenaed all speeches regarding the petition and homosexuality in general. But the lesbian mayor claimed that was over-zealous and that the subpoena has been changed to only petition related sermons. [texasmonthly.com]
(Score: 1) by srobert on Thursday October 23 2014, @04:08AM
It's not illegal. It just risks having the church lose tax-exempt status.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @11:24PM
That's a distinction without a difference. Holding that tax-exempt status while preaching politics is against the law. If they don't make good on those retro-active tax bills they can go to jail, just like any other tax evader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 15 2014, @09:03PM
JyAT7k pbibtsmhtahj [pbibtsmhtahj.com], [url=http://uoevultkdvln.com/]uoevultkdvln[/url], [link=http://snrkvfvszieg.com/]snrkvfvszieg[/link], http://odltiiofqzxe.com/ [odltiiofqzxe.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @03:32PM
In many spanish culture countries, church attendance has more to do with the social gathering than with its religious significance, although the percentages of "true believers" and "just conforming to the customs" vary. Same with other religious events, like weddings, baptisms and funerals.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @11:01AM
Two thirds of the under-30s are retards who believe in some big man in the sky woo-woo, and you brush that off as "only"? It should read:
A devastating 68% of under-30s still believe in fairy-stories.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday October 22 2014, @11:58AM
Careful careful, you write "still believe in fairy-stories" but the article measures "identify as"
Culturally it USA-istan its utterly culturally unacceptable to say you don't believe, for everyone old enough to have been affected by the "godless commie" propaganda. Every day in public schools we pledged our allegiance to a flag (WTF time?) while "under god", mass Hollywood propaganda on this topic in TV and movies, etc. Young people are growing up "norrmal" or "more normal" so its no great surprise the numbers are a little more rational.
There's really three measures:
1) Believe down to their core. Other than a modest fraction of the clergy and a tiny handful of true believers...
2) Actually behave as told to behave, as opposed to misbehave. Maybe don't believe very much, but they are whipped and thus follow the written rules and more importantly follow the authorities. This is most of the clergy and some of the laity and some politicians but not much. Mostly old people, in my observation.
3) Smart enough to know its utterly socially unacceptable in America-istan to signal they aren't christians, their actions and lifestyle usually have nothing to do with what they claim to believe. Stereotypical gay-hating republican congressmen who none the less gets it in the rear from an intern every night, most televangelists, most of the general public, really. This groups only obligation to the church is nominal declared belief and attendance on Sunday morning and occasionally denouncing in public those who dare not to conform, and nothing else outside those three responsibilities.
4) Not talking about it, but not being much interested in talking about it.
5) Outspoken rebellious "don't care" types who don't mind being demonized by the mass media and all the losers trying to enforce conformity for the sake of conformity, like stirring the pot.
You're looking at a measurement of #3 which is really just a susceptibility to conformity test, while talking about it being a measurement of #1 which is only a microscopic fraction of the population.
I've met a small handful of #1 class people and although we've politely disagreed they are none the less the cream of the crop of the species in general. I've met tons of #3 class people and generally the more outspoken they are, the bigger jackasses they are, and they give a really bad name to the #1 class people who I respectfully disagree with.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday October 22 2014, @12:32PM
Smart enough to know its utterly socially unacceptable in America-istan to signal they aren't christians
this varies by region. I don't believe in any concept of a god and I'm not afraid to say that in public. BUT, I live in a progressive area (bay area) and there are enough people like me that we would not get into trouble. if I said that in texas or anywhere along the bible belt, I'd fear for my life, like you implied.
its one reason why I won't even travel down south if I can help it. I just don't want to mix with those people. they won't accept me and they have nothing I want, either, culturally or otherwise. anywhere in the country that people are likely to ask, early on after meeting you 'what church do you go to?' is not anywhere I want to be, even short-term.
it was ok to be an athiest here in cali and it was ok in boston, too. I suspect NY also will tolerate this kind of independance; but so much of the rest of the US has become jesusland, it really is sickening that you are either with them or against them, as they see it.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:23PM
I spent a year in Huntsville, admittedly thats no backwater, its like "little Austin" but I traveled a little and its really not that bad.
I think it would be weirder for non-whites than for mere atheists. For example the station on my clock radio for morning wakeup broadcast American Dissident Voices which makes ethanolfueled sound like a MSNBC host. I can walk down a street and nobody need know I'm not an evangelical, but a black dude can't hide being black very well. They actually had a briefing when we in-processed for northerners especially blacks because historically black soldiers from the north didn't take well to having old white men and rural cops calling them "boy" and often much worse. So the in briefing was along the lines of "you're in enemy territory now don't end up a statistic on the news" and all that.
"nothing I want ... culturally"
In my experience they make great tasting food, although mostly unhealthy, and their women have a very non-bell curve distribution of being super hot or about 850 pounds and practically nothing in between. Its a fun place to visit.
The climate is hellish during the summer.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:00PM
Thank you. I believe in God, but I can't explain it, can't prove it, and accept the possibility that I could be wrong. (I like to refer to myself as a "theistic agnostic".) Religion is man made and, at times, very dangerous. It drives me nuts when I speak with a religious person... especially when I meet hypocrites like gay-hating Christians.
Last night, I met someone from Ireland and she was giving me grief because I happened to mention that my wife and I decided not to have kids. (She asked.) She has five and explicitly told me that I was wrong to not want children. It was very late and I wisely decided not to engage in that discussion. After a night's sleep, I belated realized how truly wise that was. There is only one reason (that I can think of) why someone would think it would be "wrong to not to want children": religion. Ugh. Yuck. I'm really glad I didn't go down that road.
You know, it's amazing how many people say they believe in "freedom" and then think you're wrong for wanting something different from them... sometimes even forcing you into a particular action you don't want. What ever happened to free will? Something tells me the religious don't fully understand their oft used phrase "God given free will". (I never use that phrase.) On the flip side, it's not pleasant being called a "retard" as grandparent suggested I am. We all have our eccentricities.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:11PM
"There is only one reason (that I can think of) why someone would think it would be "wrong to not to want children""
Children can bring a lot of joy to one's life. My kid certainly brings a lot of joy to mine. I realize that both people and situations are vary. What is great for me might not be so good for you. She may just not realize that. There's a second reason for you.
Or... it might just be that commandment to go out and fill the earth. It's all just conjecture without asking her.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:04PM
My kid certainly brings a lot of joy to mine.
Wait until it's a teenager.
That being said, they seem to start acting human again around 22-23 or so and are almost fully formed to the point you can stand to talk to them again around 25 or so. YMMV.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:25PM
That being said, they seem to start acting human again around 22-23 or so and are almost fully formed to the point you can stand to talk to them again around 25 or so. YMMV.
My youngest turned around completely and became a responsible adult overnight when he turned 18. It might have been the two years of telling him "I can't wait until you turn 18, because I can kick you right out of here and you'll be on your own" that helped do that, I don't know.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:40PM
Someone whose children bring her great joy and who wants others to experience that joy for themselves would say "you can't imagine how wonderful a child is until you have your own," or something like that.
Almost any time a moral/social statement begins with "You are wrong [not] to..." it's going to be a religious statement.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:59PM
Well.. I would agree with you so far as to say that is probably where she was coming from. I was just commenting on not being able to imagine any other reason for her to say that... I can imagine that someone sufficiently blind to the fact that other people are different from themselves might end up saying that too, especially if they aren't chosing their words very carefully. Sure, it's less likely, and if I had to take a bet it would be on the religious reason but it's another possibility. I think.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:12PM
There are other reason to want children (the joy they bring, gives some meaning to your life after you've done most of the things you wanted to do in your 20s and early 30s, somebody to take care of you and comfort you when you're old) but not wanting those things isn't necessarily "wrong."
One thing that I can think of that would make me feel "wrong" to not have children is knowing I'm breaking the chain. As far as we can tell, there was one genesis of life on this earth. So for 3.5 billion years there has been an unbroken chain of parent to child to parent to child from that first single-celled organism to me. I think about all those mammals struggling to survive, I think about all my human ancestors and all the shit they had to wade through for millennia. Passing the torch and passing the torch and then it comes to me and I say, "meh. I'm not going to bother. 3.5 billion years and I'm ending it here." That feels wrong to me.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:26PM
Great point and certainly one I wrestled with for a while until the final decision was made. One of the things that helped me feel better is the idea that supporting children that are not your own is a good thing for society and there are a variety of ways to support them. Sometimes, not having children can put you in a good place for your extended family and friends. When I was growing up, a childless aunt and uncle would have gotten me and my brother had my parents met an untimely demise. Their financial situation would have made that easier than other aunts and uncles that I had with children. (Fortunately, my parents are fine.) Today, I have a couple of goddaughters and some of my good friends have children. I love all of them. (Even if I can't express it being so far away from them.) As they grow up, the "uncle in another country" may offer them some good opportunities. If we had had children, I'm not sure we would have made the jump to live in another country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:28PM
It is kind of weird to be an agnostic godparent. A godparent's job is religious indoctrination. That's what the "god" part in the name is all about.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday October 22 2014, @07:05PM
Historically, yes, but it's not just limited to Catholics (which is where I believe it originated). In the culture where I come from, there is certainly a heavy influence from religion when being a godparent, but not totally dictated by religion. Also, don't confuse agnosticism with atheism. I am agnostic, but I also believe in a god. (Agnostics can also believe multiple gods.) There's no good reason why I couldn't be a godparent. Even if I didn't believe in a god, the culture that I came from would require (as a godparent) I should be helping to sure the child is brought up well. Neither my godmother nor my godfather ever grilled me as to my religious beliefs. But I'm really glad they were there when I was growing up. In a sense, they were role models to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @04:37PM
And don't confuse agnostics with theists. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god, gods, leprechauns, or tea pots circling the Earth, but I am only 99% certain these things do not exist.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:23PM
Passing the torch and passing the torch and then it comes to me and I say, "meh. I'm not going to bother. 3.5 billion years and I'm ending it here." That feels wrong to me.
Well with the inevitable ballooning of overpopulation, at least metamonkey can say he "did the right thing."
(continuing my theme that most every argument in the world can be characterized as idealism vs. pragmatism)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:17PM
I did do the right thing. My wife and I have two kids. We replaced ourselves, but didn't go nuts and release 12 new people onto the world.
However, I'm totally fine with others "doing the right thing" and not reproducing. That leaves more resources for my progeny.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:35PM
There are plenty of reasons why not having kids is a very reasonable decision:
- There are plenty of babies in the world. If you decided later on you wanted to have the parenting experience, you could always adopt someone else's kids. In the US, that's especially true if you are willing to raise a child who is of a different racial background as yourselves.
- On average, couples without children are happier than couples with children, and are much more satisfied with their relationship with each other.
- Kids are really expensive, to the tune of something like $500,000 per child.
As far as why somebody would think it would be wrong not to have children, there are a lot of people who have been taught that their life only has meaning if they have descendents (women in particular get this message a lot from their own mothers and grandmothers). People who don't have a sense of purpose or fulfilling work often see children as the one legacy they can manage to leave to the future. Some are worried that the family line will end if they don't have children (this only really matters to hereditary nobility and royalty, but a lot of people care about it). Among farmers and family businesses, children are seen as additional helping hands to do the work once they're 10 years old or so. Some are trying to maximize the number of people in the next generation that share their racial and religious identity (e.g. Mormons are strongly encouraged to have lots of children so there will be more Mormons in the future, and that was also a motivation for polygamy). Some are motivated by the religious idea of "Be fruitful and multiply".
Since your friend is likely Catholic, the other religious part of her motivation would have a lot to do with the fact that your childlessness is likely the result of using birth control and/or abortion rather than celibacy, which is specifically contrary to Catholic teaching on the subject.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:17PM
Another reason to not have kids -- my siblings have all had serious mental illness problems (and I have minor problems with occasional depression). I watched as this turned into a huge heartbreak for my parents--and didn't think I was up to bearing anything similar if I had kids with similar problems. There is also a broad history of mental illness (aka crazyness) in both of my parent's families. Some genetic lines might not be worth continuing?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:52PM
Ouch. Don't be too quick to bash your own genes. Yes, some behavior qualifies as mental, and some forms of mental illness do run in families. But in recent decades it has also been fashionable to see mental illness where it is not. There's a lot of incentive to do so.
One of the quickest, easiest ways for a teacher to deal with a "problem" student is to claim that the kid might have ADHD, and get some compliant doctor to agree and prescribe some Ritalin. The doctor and Big Pharma make money, and the kid is too doped up and tranquilized to bother the teacher with questions. Even the parents can be in on this, wanting their youngster to stop bothering them too. Everyone wins, except the kid.
Then there are these psychiatric hospitals that are more interested in collecting reimbursement for treatments than in whether those treatments were good or necessary. What's scary is how easy it can be to get someone normal committed against their will, as long as the ward can make money off them. The ward doesn't want them if they're destitute and have no insurance or state support.
Also consider environmental factors. Did your families live in areas that had been severely polluted? Born on the wrong side of the tracks? A big polluter is lead. One reason crime has gone down in recent decades is the elimination of leaded gasoline. Lead poisoning makes people less intelligent and more violent and mentally unstable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:07PM
> The doctor and Big Pharma make money, and the kid is too doped up and tranquilized to bother the teacher with questions.
One small point, ritalin (and adderall and basically all the ADHD "medicines") are just minor variations on meth. The scientific name for ritalin is methylphenidate. Tranquillize isn't the right description for what it does to kids.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @12:48AM
Your ignorance of chemistry is astounding. The "meth" in "methylphenidate" isn't for methamphetamine, its to indicate the presence of a methyl group (NH3) on the phenidate molocule. Adderal (amphetamine) is related to Desoxyn (methampetamine), as they only differ by the N-methyl group.
Fun fact - amphetamine stands for alpha methyl phenetylamine. Dopamine, epinephrine (adrenaline), and norepinephrine - all important neurotransmitters and hormones - are all phenethylamines, and are thus structurally more similar to meth than Ritalin.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:20PM
There is only one reason (that I can think of) why someone would think it would be "wrong to not to want children": religion. Ugh. Yuck. I'm really glad I didn't go down that road.
The reason I think of is that I can't be certain I won't raise a little fucker and I don't want to make the world a worse place. It has enough shit going on already.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:26PM
It drives me nuts when I speak with a religious person... especially when I meet hypocrites like gay-hating Christians.
The trouble with most Christians is if they read the Bible at all, they only read the old testament. What you describe is the exact opposite of what Christ taught -- Judge not lest you be judged yourself; love your neighbor as you love yourself; "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Even PREACHERS! There's one local preacher that broadcasts services over TV, and I was shocked to see him on the news saying he owned an automatic handgun and was applying for a concealed carry permit for personal protection! Obviously he didn't understand what Jesus meant by "Live by the sword, die by the sword", or have enough faith in God to trust Him to protect him. Nor is the pitiful man smart enough to realize that everybody has to die, but everybody doesn't have to kill.
I especially pity his congregation.
The gay-hating Christians you refer to especially annoy me. I knew one woman once who was crying in her beer saying "I wish I wasn't a lesbian so I wouldn't go to hell when I die"; at church that morning the preacher had railed against homosexuality. I pointed out that it was as much a sin for me to eat pussy as it was her, and that all one needs to be forgiven is to be repentant.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2, Interesting) by TK-421 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @06:45PM
So...I personally identify as Christian and in my opinion mcgrew is more right than wrong in his (assumed gender) assessment.
I am going to get a little preachy but bear with me, I promise to bring it back to topic.
Christians are supposed to mirror the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus ministered to sinners and met them where they were. His anger was largely reserved for religious hypocrites. You could embody and practice every sin known to man and it wouldn't change the feelings God and Jesus have toward you. No matter what you do, They love you and will never stop pursuing you.
If you know a Christian and they are not mirroring those exact tenants then you likely cannot trust them to minister to you.
Let me be clear, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I do believe that. However, all sin is equal in God's eyes and the punishment is the same regardless. Ever looked at someone other than your spouse with lust? Jesus said that was a sin so you would get the same punishment as a homosexual. My point being that everyone has a bend toward sin. What is a stumbling block for me (trust me I have plenty) might not be so for you, but we all have them. To even attempt to single out one sin over another is pointless and contrary to the Bible's teaching. The break comes from accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and savior and spending the rest of your life telling how He changed your life and can do the same for others. He took the punishment for your sins. No preacher, clergy, or minister can do this for you, they can only tell you how they received the same grace (assuming they have received it).
So with that said, how many Christians have you met who are living out the above tenants in a consistent manner? How many have you met where their words and actions matched? Regardless of what you believe in, if you do one thing and say another you will lose all credibility with those you wish to teach.
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:27PM
Check the quality of your DNA, your finances, your mental stability, your intelligence, your relationship stability...
If that stuff is generally above average, then you should make kids. If not, then don't make kids. The better off you are, the more kids you should make.
I think you have a duty to bring up the average if you are able to do so. This would be doing your part to slow (ideally prevent) a slide into Idiocracy. Failing to fight the collapse of civilization is wrong.
Not that the Universe would care if our civilization collapsed, but I'm human and I care. You should too.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 22 2014, @06:09PM
There is only one reason (that I can think of) why someone would think it would be "wrong to not to want children"
They could just not like kids. Most women dog owners treat their pet dogs exactly like kids to the point of utter comedy, and without all the "birth responsibility drama" its no great surprise that only a (large) fraction of the worlds humanity want a pet dog.
Another point not discussed so far is everyone here assumes "wanting children" means wife squirts out a kid, but the worlds got no shortage of orphans. Thats something to think about too.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 22 2014, @10:52PM
So you've met Jean too, eh? She had the gall to tell me I was with the wrong woman, despite the fact that my partner and I are both ardently childfree and happiest that way. I hope John apologised to you afterwards, like he did to me.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:36PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 1) by RobotLove on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:46PM
Maybe the circumcision went wrong?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:29PM
Maybe a "half-Jewish" is like a "half-Nelson."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:33PM
Jews are a particularly weird mix religousity and ethnicity. Secular jews [wikipedia.org] are a real thing and not uncommon. Jews also like to refer to themselves as "members of the Tribe" [cooljewbook.com] or M.O.T. for hipster jews.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 22 2014, @11:05PM
If only his mum was jewish he's be beaten with a belt for blashpemy if he called that "half jewish". By his grandmother.
But quasiracist joshing aside, yes, "jewish" isn't so much a religeous descriptor nowadays as a cultural one.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:53PM
That's all speculation. Here's some more speculation: most people who do a phone survey know they aren't going to get lynched for their answers, and have little desire to lie.
(Score: 1) by srobert on Thursday October 23 2014, @04:17AM
"Careful careful, you write 'still believe in fairy-stories' but the article measures 'identify as'".
There's a good point in that. I identify as a "christian". (Actually, I sometimes identify as an agnostic. Depends on the context.). But what is it I actually believe about Jesus?
1. Born to a virgin? No.
2. Walked on water? No.
3. Rose from the dead? No.
4. Fed a crowd with a few loaves of bread and pieces of fish? No
5. Pulled a rabbit from his hat? No.
6. Actually existed? Not necessarily.
7. Was the epitome of human compassion, when he cried out to his deity to forgive those who were torturing him. Ahh that's it. That's the sense in which I could identify as a "christian". If there's a real god, he probably wants us to cut each other some slack.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Wednesday October 22 2014, @12:38PM
Sounds like some of the youngsters are getting the message.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:39PM
"Religion is like a penis. It's fine if you have one; it's fine if you're proud of it, but don't go waving it about in public. And for God's sake, don't try to shove it down children's throats".
And don't write legislation with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:47PM
I doubt that at all... This video sums it up very nicely. Showing how people act.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_XbO7bLQ8 [youtube.com]
Many people follow whatever their friends do. Few think for themselves one way or the other as they do not want to feel out of place. As you get older you tend not to give a rats ass what others think.
If you truly believe in what you say why do you use derision as your weapon? Are you trying to help someone or just make yourself feel better. Remember a troll feeds on hate. You are not a troll are you?
(Score: 1) by Zanothis on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:51PM
From the TFS:
The "no religion" answer is more of a "no organized religion" selection rather than a lack of belief in the FSM. I would imagine that church attendance hasn't been down generally, just that people are leaving the big name religions in favor of the nondenominational "community" churches.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:41PM
I would imagine that church attendance hasn't been down generally, just that people are leaving the big name religions in favor of the non-denominational "community" churches.
For most people church is a social club first and a religious experience second. US law incentivizes this particular kind of social club over others like bowling leagues by making it tax deductible. If other types of social clubs could easily become tax deductible I think we'd see a significant drop in church attendance.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 22 2014, @12:30PM
A common time for adults to consider becoming religious is during the first pregnancy of a married couple. This is because they don't care much for religion for themselves, but really really want a religious community for their kids. Couples about to become parents often go through a "church shopping" stage where they visit all the religious groups that are vaguely like their own belief system before deciding on one. In a lot of religious communities, the age demographics are really very clear, with the categories being: Children, parents, empty nesters, elders/retirees. A lot of religious groups try outreach to non-parent younger adults, and almost none of those efforts develop into anything approaching permanence.
Since younger people have been delaying marriage and children, primarily due to being broke, they are also delaying their interest in religion. Who knows whether it will stay that way once the economy changes around.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @12:57PM
> really really want a religious community for their kids...often go through a "church shopping"
I don't know a single couple who have behaved like this.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:38PM
It happens enough that it got a week-long satirical jab from Gary Trudeau. I couldn't quickly find a link to the specific comics, but I did find a couple [yorkfirst.org] pages [uusociety.org] that describe them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:07PM
You are living in a pretty weird place, dear sir, if your
>really really want a religious community for their kids
has any grain of truth in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:05PM
I've definitely seen it. I attribute it mostly to new parents wanting to raise their kids "right," where "right" usually means they way they, themselves were raised. These are usually people who suffered through regular church services as a kid and abandoned church (except for Christmas and Easter) upon moving out of their parents' house. Generally had a church wedding, often at one of their childhood churches. They seem to figure that they turned out ok, and the moral indoctrination must have some role in that.
Same people who want their kids to read Richard Scarry and Dr. Seuss books, rather than Dora or Spongebob.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:51PM
> Same people who want their kids to read Richard Scarry and Dr. Seuss books, rather than Dora or Spongebob.
Some of us see the massive commercialization of dora and spongebob and compare it to the minimal (but not non-existent) commercialization of Richard Scarry and Doctor Seuss and don't want our kids indoctrinated with that commercialization. Even though we recognize that Seuss is under attack by modern corporate interests - at least Disney hasn't acquired either one yet.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:56PM
Now, that's what I call Faith, brother. Hallelujah!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 23 2014, @02:12AM
Who knows whether it will stay that way once the economy changes around.
Hahahaha!!!
That's like believing the Rapture is right around the corner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @12:46PM
All religion is bunk. The sooner people realize that, the better off the world will be. Religions cannot stand up against a 3 letter question, "WHY? ". Just keep asking it repeatedly to any religious person, and they will quickly run out of answers, dropping back to a "just because" type response. The books that document religious history are also filled with contradictions, and there is never any measure of proof in the existence of the alleged 'supreme being'. "Because we said so" seems to be the response there.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:02PM
there's a handful of sides on this problem.
The Poor - who desperately do not want to believe that it is other humans (and themselves) are responsible for their situation. - solution? Either blame sky god; or beg sky god for help.
The Rich - let's push the idea that dedicating yourself to "sky god" will make you get rich like us (and then they laugh at the rest of the population)
the New parent - "let's try to find a community of like minded people to raise our child with. or at least give the kid a chance to find a way up the social/economic ladder"
the control freak - "what you are doing is EVIL! you must do what I say!"
strangely there doesnt seem to be an angle where an honest to goodness god-like entity is really pushing an agenda..
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:31PM
I think you're assigning agendas to people that are only in your mind. I'm sure there are such people, but I don't at all think of my faith as an attempt to climb a social or economic ladder. If anything it's a detriment. I'm pretty sure I'm the only one of my coworkers who goes to church. I'm Catholic, and the only outward displays of my faith at work are on Ash Wednesday when I've got the ashes on my forehead, or I do have two small pictures on my desk where only I can see them. One of Saint Albert the Great (patron saint of the natural sciences) and one of Saint Patrick (patron saint of engineers).
I don't have an agenda for my faith. I'm not trying to convert anybody, I'm not trying to legislate my beliefs. This is how I choose to live my life, and you are free to live your life as you choose. My religion isn't about telling you what to do, it's about the standards and guiding principles I use to make my way through life. I'm not saying I don't care what you believe. I care about you. But I'm not going to take any action besides maybe a prayer, and perhaps leading by example such that others might say "that guy's pretty content and happy. What does he know that I don't?"
As for why I believe, it's really a choice. There are several foundational beliefs, things I take on faith without proof that lead me to Catholicism. But I'm not climbing any ladders.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:01PM
- i may have had to deal with far too many evangelicals; and people who have issues with my own faith (Daoism) who would like to see me back under the influence of the church.
I wish that the majority of people of christian faith would actually do what Jesus said, and less of what Paul said. I would encourage them to sit down with Bible historians. (The last one I knew was removed from his job as Pastor for the 3 week sermon about how the Council decided what books got into the Bible. It was fascinating. )
Even Roman Catholic Bishops see fundamentalism as a incorrect interpretation of faith.
I'm happy that you aren't; and that those people do not spend time on this site; but it is those people who make all religion look like a mental illness.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @07:27PM
Ok fine, add to his list "people with a persecution complex."
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:09PM
Science can't stand up to that either. The end answer would probably be "it isn't known" though.
Faith, not evidence, is the reason people believe in religion. The reasons, good or bad, for that faith depend on the individual.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:55PM
> Science can't stand up to that either.
Science answers the "how" and religion answers the "why."
The OP's problem with religion and asking "WHY?" is that he doesn't like the answer, but every religion definitely has an answer to that question.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:18PM
To be honest, everything works that way. Feynman perhaps explains it better than I can, [youtube.com] but for every phenomenon of the universe at some point you get down to "because that's the way the universe works."
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:42PM
My take on it is, this story is transparent trolling for a flame fest, and we are better off without it.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:50PM
Oh? Really? How come?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:09PM
It has the word "religious" in the headline. Nuff said.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:58PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:06PM
Of course I see something wrong with it. I'm also actively disinterested in reading people's personal views on religion, which is what I expect 90% of the comments to be about.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:44PM
Religiousness (or "religiosity") has historically been defined by academics and the media in terms of "affiliation". Basically, if you weren't part of some established flavor of a major religion, you didn't count. The real shift isn't necessarily skewed toward atheism/agnosticism so much as the exploration of these and other new choices. Personal spirituality has been the trend since the 1960's, gaining traction through the popularity of the New Age movement.
Nowhere in the cited studies did I see categories outside the traditional establishment. Sure, there are a lot less young Baptists, but there are a metric buttload of New Agers, neo-pagans, and other forms of personal, non-traditional spirituality.
"Religion" could justifiably be regarded now as just a sub-set of the more-inclusive "Spirituality".
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:41PM
I read a really good book called Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. [amazon.com] The author attempts to explain the trend that you've noticed, how since the 50s, identification with a religious denomination has dwindled, while the number of Americans describing themselves as ascribing to some supernatural belief hasn't really changed. There are chapters devoted to the "I'm spiritual but not religious" "Eat, Pray, Love" kind of thing, the prosperity-based Christians (think Joel Osteen), eastern philosophies, etc. The author is a Catholic but he's not pushing any kind of agenda or passing judgment. It's just a history of "this is how we got from there to here." Really good read.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:36PM
Another worthwhile reference, to the relatively new concept of "post-theological" --
http://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2008/features/the-post-theological-umbrella [thehumanist.com]
This really rang a bell for me -- I have no childhood experience of organized religion (except as heard from playmates). Both my parents quit their family religions as teenagers (both had broad minded parents) and never looked back. Have never gone to an ordinary church/temple/etc service, although I have attended church weddings, funerals and other special events.
When growing up, sometimes other kids would ask if I was atheist or agnostic and I didn't have enough context to have any answer... it was just very confusing! Luckily this was in suburban NE USA where there was enough tolerance that I was just labeled "weird" and not harassed any further.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:00PM
That was interesting, and is good advice for atheists.
They make mention of the disdain and distrust many feel towards atheists. To be honest, a large part of that is because so many atheists (the most vocal, surely) are so openly hostile and antagonistic. Just look at this thread. The hostility is all coming from the atheists, calling believers "retards," talking about "magic sky fairies" and "fairy-tales." (which are ridiculous strawmen) It's not hard to imagine that the reason so many are hostile towards atheists is because vocal atheists go out of their way to insult and belittle others.
Admittedly, the most vocal (and silly) Christians (the evangelicals) are pretty hostile to everyone else, too, and I think they give all believers a bad name. It would be nice if we could lock all the evangelicals and the militant atheists in a closet and let them fight it out, while the rest of us peacefully and quietly attend our churches or don't.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:02PM
The thing about militant atheists is that they have good reason to be militant. The religious are constantly bending society to match their religion (one nation "under god" added to the pledge of allegience and "in god we trust" added to currency are just the tiniest tip of the iceberg). That they occasionally rub people the wrong way is the nature of the beast, no social progress is ever made without pissing off some people in the process. Just look at all the people violently angry with wikileaks. Challenge the status quo and the status quo will challenge you.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:15PM
I don't disagree, but I think the vehemence towards all religion that comes from militant atheists rather hurts their cause. Assuming that their cause is a reduction of religious influence in politics and not simply self-aggrandizement and antagonism for its own sake.
I'm Catholic. I have practically nothing in common with evangelicals. They hate me too. I'm a papist idolater. I am very troubled by the religious fundamentalism that comes out of the Republican party and has far too much influence on government policy. I would like to see that ended. I am not interested in legislating my religion. My faith is the set of principles and ideals I use to guide me through life. I have no interest in forcing anyone else to act like me. God gave us free will. Who am I to take that away?
So here you go atheists. You've got an ally against the evangelicals in politics right here. And there are lots more people like me! But, word of advice, it's easier to get them on board if you don't greet them screaming "RETARD MAGICAL SKY FAIRY LOLOLOL."
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @11:20PM
Catholics make trouble in politics too. It tends to be about sex. One of the recent court challenges to obamacare was something along the lines that a catholic hospital didn't want to have to sign the form that says their employees will have to get IUDs paid for by the insurance companies and not by the hospitals employer-contribution to their health insurance. They weren't happy with being able to opt-out of paying for IUDs, they didn't want to even have to opt-out.
(Score: 2) by carguy on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:09PM
Years ago there was a clever post to that other site, something along the lines of, "I'm just like you but I believe in one less God/god than you do."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @05:29PM
Not all US citizens want more religion in government.
Some of want no religion in government, this being an alledged secular nation.
In fact, some of us feel there is too much religion in government already.
I am one of this group.
The fact that most here(USA) consider themselves 'christians' has enabled religion to creep into government too much already.
This is the only reason that I even care about the prevalence of religion.
I am outraged, insulted, and offended that this has happened. It is a direct attack on religous freedom that is promised us in the Constitutional Ammendments.
As it is, there is not freedom of religion in this country. The 'christians' have turned it into 'freedom for our religion, and fsck you'.
A hard fact: You cannot truly have freedom of religion without having freedom FROM religion.
Without freedom from religion, you have a State sponsored theocracy.
I'm sick and tired of having religion-based laws and regulations shoved down my throat, and have become quite militant about it as I get older.
I'm tired of being singled out as an atheist, and attacked both verbally and physically for the sole reason of being an atheist.
I'm tired of the 'Us vs. Them' attitude, hatred for others, bigotry, and general FUD that comes from religous beliefs/teachings/text.
So, the next time you encounter a hostile/militant atheist, maybe ask yourself(or them) why they are so hostile/militant...think about it.
I just want to be left alone to purue my own life and happiness and well being and that of friends and family.
I try to live by the 'golden rule', and wish no ill will on strangers.
On the other hand, the more something is forced on me, the harder I fight back.(this is why I've become militant about religion)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @06:09PM
Biotechnology will start a new religious war in the US. Stem cell therapy [soylentnews.org], biological immortality [wikipedia.org], genetic engineering [slashdot.org], artificial intelligence [wikipedia.org], and mind uploading [hplusmagazine.com] will trigger a backlash. If you don't need to fear death, you don't need to fear a god. You do need to fear the followers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:53PM
Eh, humanity never learns from the past [wikipedia.org].
(grin... a large one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 23 2014, @01:00AM
In the USA government is by, of, and for the people (at least in theory). If your fellow countrymen are Christian then, yes, their governance will be influenced by their beliefs. I don't think there is any way you can completely separate what people believe from how they decide to govern themselves (and others). The corollary is that you can tell what your neighbours truly believe about you by the way they treat you. Please note that this is purely an observation about the way things are, not necessarily about the way they ought to be.
On this much, we agree.
You have been attacked physically for the sole reason of being an atheist? Seriously? Man, that's awful! I'm really sorry to hear that.
The first irony is that your comments practically scream out an 'Us vs. Them' attitude which you deplore in others.
The second irony is that this notion of the 'golden rule' comes directly from Moses (Lev 19:18). You seem to want to divorce yourself from any remnants of Judeo-Christian culture and values. And yet, you still seem to be influenced by those values. As hard as you try to run, you can't seem to escape. In fact, there still seem to be bits and pieces that you want to hold on to. Strange, no?
Just a word of caution for you. I am reminded of a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Just a thought.