Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds

CUNxTime · #46 (**permalink**) 03-12-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew S

I could care less. The bible has as much relevance to me as Grimms fairy tales.

Actually, some of the fairy tales teach valuable lessons...

jyoshu · #47 (**permalink**) 03-12-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

I don't fail to admit that. That is irrelevant to the point. The point is that Marc and I were both talking about the first poll in your link. That's where he got the number 99.86% (by simple arithmetic) that you seem oblivious to. You seem stuck on the fact that Marc said that the 99.87% excluded a possibility of God’s presence in evolution. I guess you aren't familiar with creationist arguments. You don't seem to realize that to a creationist, acceptance of evolution is a denial of god.

While I understand firsthand how easy it is to find Foundit disagreeable, I have to disagree with you myself here on this issue, in this case. There is creationism--which is a rather broad matter--and there is what is known as Young Earth Creationism. (often abbreviated to "YEC" in discussion.) Creationism can certainly include what is known as theistic evolution--the two sort of 'cross over' if you will. Theistic evolution still involves God as a creator, but with evolution as the process involved. Your position seems to be a very literal reading of the creation account in Genesis, as is the approach usually employed by YECism. But as one holding to the view of theistic evolution, I am still a creationist in the sense that I believe God is the creator. I just don't consider those verses as a literal accounting of the process. (not unlike a number of places in the Bible which are considered figurative by many people.)

foundit66 · #48 (**permalink**) 03-12-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

I don't fail to admit that. That is irrelevant to the point.

ROFLMAO!
I state what my REAL ISSUE is with Marc's claims, and you claim it is "irrelevant" as you condemn me taking issue with Marc's claim...
Wow. That is just amazing Pandion!

You complain about what I said, but then insist that what I said was "irrelevant".
Bravo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

The point is that Marc and I were both talking about the first poll in your link. That's where he got the number 99.86% (by simple arithmetic) that you seem oblivious to. You seem stuck on the fact that Marc said that the 99.87% excluded a possibility of God’s presence in evolution.

Okay. How do I boil this down so even you can understand...

Suppose John said "14% of the animals at the vet clinic are cats".
Marc comes along and says "That means that 86% of the animals at the vet clinic are dogs".
WRONG!
It is an improper assumption to presume that just because an animal is not a "cat" that has to mean it's a "dog".

My point is NOT regarding the "0.14%", but rather what Marc's claim is regarding what "not part of the 0.14%" means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

I guess you aren't familiar with creationist arguments. You don't seem to realize that to a creationist, acceptance of evolution is a denial of god.

See, this is part of the area where it gets lame and pointless.
We ARE NOT DEALING with just "creationists".
This poll was about SCIENTISTS.

So if a creationist wants to say "86% remaining must mean dog cause my mind doesn't process other animals", then that's the creationist error.
But when the SCIENTISTS are shown to have OTHER categories beyond just "not adhering to creation science", that AUTOMATICALLY shows different realities.

I am really amazed at how you can complain about what I said, when my ACTUAL point was that Marc's statement of "excludes a possibility of God’s presence" is false!
Just because a scientist is not a creationist DOES NOT mean they don't believe in God.
And it doesn't matter what the creationists "believe" on the issue. Just because a creationist "believes" that "not a cat means dog" doesn't make an animal that is not a cat automatically a dog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

The point is that the number (99.86%) was quite obvious to anyone of even moderate intelligence. But you made an issue and moved the goal posts.

No moving of any goal posts.
"excludes a possibility of God’s presence" has been the issue from the start.
If you think that is "moving the goal posts", then you obviously never understood what was going on in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

You made an issue about the fact that the number wasn't in the link and then tried to pretend that the discussion was about creationists/theistic evolutionists/naturalistic evolutionists. Not true. All I was pointing out (until you went through such twisting and turning to move the goal posts) was that that number was implicit in the link regardless of Marc's creationist shading.

What you fail to recognize is that the 99.86% number means "not a creation scientist adherent".
Just because people do not adhere to creation science DOES NOT mean that they "excludes a possibility of God’s presence".

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

I have never actually found any problem with your posts until now. But suddenly you are arguing like a creationist. It seems that Marc has been winning some points and you are flailing a bit. Otherwise, why else would you still deny that the number (99.86%) is not implicit in the link?

First, I didn't see it because I didn't realize he was misrepresenting the situation.
He starts out claiming (by analogy) "86% of the animals are dogs", and I didn't realize the grotesque logic error he was committing.
After I saw his source, THAT is when I started to correct him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

And then you had the gall to claim that the poll that you cited disagreed with my numbers when, in fact, the poll was identical to my numbers. Again, do you actually read your own links?

The poll I cited broke it into THREE DISTINCT GROUPS.
If one were to count up EXACTLY what percentage "excludes a possibility of God’s presence", that percentage is ACTUALLY 55%.
NOT 95%.

Let me put that to you again.
By my poll, 55% "excludes a possibility of God’s presence".
That does NOT confirm marc's statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandion

How do the numbers from the 1997 poll of 5% creationists among degreed scientists and a total of 95% not creationist disagree with what I said? So what if I lumped theistic evolutionists and naturalistic evolutionists? Do you somehow think that a theistic evolutionist is somehow a creationist in disguise?

I'm sorry, you just claimed my position was "irrelevant".
And now you ask all these really stupid questions, which should be obvious by now?
Like I said, I am NOT saying "45%" are creationists.
I never said that.

My point is that it is NOT "95%" who "excludes a possibility of God’s presence".
Can you kindly make up your mind as to whether or not my position is "irrelevant", or whether you want me to elaborate.

If what I said was irrelevant, then stop complaining about it.
If what I said was relevant enough to complain about, then at least GET IT RIGHT as to what I am actually saying.

marc9000 · #49 (**permalink**) 03-12-2009, 06:15 PM

Political views are not as numerous as different kinds of animals. Some scientists believe there is a God, while many scientists believe there is no God. You’re trying to imply that there are as many numerous positions of scientists that somehow fall in between these two extreme positions as there are animals. Even if that were true, they all have opinions on two way political decisions. But I don’t believe it’s true - it’s clear to me that most theistic evolutionists believe in a weak, irrelevant, un-involved God, because they almost always agree with the atheists on two way political decisions, like embryonic stem cell research, or fears of global warming. Irrelevant is almost the same as non-existant. Presence can be worlds apart from relevance.

Suppose someone has to make a decision on whether or not to rob a bank. A creationist robber would decide not to - there is a guard with a gun! The atheist robber would decide to - there is no guard! The theistic evolutionist robber would decide to rob it just like the atheist. There is a guard, but he’s 95 years old, has no gun, and is sitting in a chair and can’t get up! That’s the view most theistic evolutionists seem to have for a God that needs evolution to do most of his work.

I believe, as you probably do too, that the slip in Christianity in the U.S. involves only two forces - Christianity vs humanism. Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, and other religions have little, or nothing to do with it. Humanism is a close cousin of science and atheism as they re-inforce it. Our main disagreement seems to be what's causing the slip. You seem to think that Christianity's gains or losses are entirely due only to what it does, and the neutrality

of humanism is simply standing on the sidelines observing. You're not going to convince too many people of that.

foundit66 · #50 (**permalink**) 03-12-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc9000

Political views are not as numerous as different kinds of animals. Some scientists believe there is a God, while many scientists believe there is no God. You’re trying to imply that there are as many numerous positions of scientists that somehow fall in between these two extreme positions as there are animals.

Wrong.
I am saying there are two groups.
One believes in God.
Another does not believe in God.

I am saying that the group that consists of "believes in God" is not limited to JUST "we adhere to creation science".
YOU are demanding that the ONLY way one can believe in God is to adhere to creation science. That is nonsensical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc9000

Even if that were true, they all have opinions on two way political decisions. But I don’t believe it’s true - it’s clear to me that most theistic evolutionists believe in a weak, irrelevant, un-involved God, because they almost always agree with the atheists on two way political decisions, like embryonic stem cell research, or fears of global warming. Irrelevant is almost the same as non-existant. Presence can be worlds apart from relevance.

And therein lies the root of the problem.
You are guilty of the "No true scotsman" approach.

You believe people can believe God EXISTS, but you disregard them and pretend that they fall in "excludes a possibility of God’s presence" category if they do not believe God ACTED as your beliefs dictate he acted.

It's like John and Martha both saying Rich exists. They all work at the same office.
John claims that Rich created and runs the company.
Martha thinks that Rich did not do all that. She credits other people.
Ergo, by your mentality, John proclaims that Martha doesn't believe Rich exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc9000

Suppose someone has to make a decision on whether or not to rob a bank. A creationist robber would decide not to - there is a guard with a gun! The atheist robber would decide to - there is no guard! The theistic evolutionist robber would decide to rob it just like the atheist. There is a guard, but he’s 95 years old, has no gun, and is sitting in a chair and can’t get up!

A perfect demonstration of "no true scotsman".
You declare the "theistic evolution robber" is not "theist" just cause he robs the bank even though he knows there is a guard.

So let's extend your "logic" here.
People ROB BANKS (or try to) don't they?
So by your logic, YOU would proclaim that those bank robbers don't believe there are any bank guards....

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc9000

I believe, as you probably do too, that the slip in Christianity in the U.S. involves only two forces - Christianity vs humanism. Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, and other religions have little, or nothing to do with it. Humanism is a close cousin of science and atheism as they re-inforce it. Our main disagreement seems to be what's causing the slip. You seem to think that Christianity's gains or losses are entirely due only to what it does, and the neutrality

of humanism is simply standing on the sidelines observing. You're not going to convince too many people of that.

There are plenty of web-sites that deal with "ex-Christians".
Maybe we should visit them to see what they have to say?

I would honestly be surprised if anybody claimed "Maher / Dawkins convinced me".
The real part where I have extreme difficulty with that is how Maher and Dawkins approach things WITH A SLEDGE HAMMER.
Both put forth the bleeping notion that if you believe in God, you are an #####.
People DO NOT get convinced that they are wrong based on some arrogant schmuck telling them that they are an #####.

Archie is a perfect example. He DOES NOT convince people cause he's too insulting and denigrating.

Going a step further, Christians DO ACTIVELY CONVERT people cause they BELIEVE they have to.
Atheists just believe "there is no God". That's it.
There is no drive for them to try to insist others believe as they do because of that.
You DO have people like Dawkins and Maher, but they are driven by ARROGANCE. Insulting, denigrating, ARROGANCE.
They are not driven because of their religion.
Their tactics are counter-productive.

You've seen me post.
You've probably come to some personal assessment of my attitude towards religion based on my posting.
Whether you want to believe it or not, when I watch Maher's show, my partner and I start getting mad at him for his insulting, denigrating arrogance towards religion.
If I react to him like that, what do you think somebody WHO BELIEVES in Jesus is going to react to him with? Definitely not an "Oh, well I guess you're right"...

peteratwar · #51 (**permalink**) 03-19-2009, 09:14 AM

Interestingly, a similar sort of survey was done recently in the UK. It's findings were basically that people were no less relgious than they ever were. And the number of believers was actually very high.

However, there was a considerable drop in the numbers who believed in the way organised rlgions worked.

foundit66 · #52 (**permalink**) 04-28-2009, 06:08 PM

It was only a matter of time before somebody started asking the questions as to "Why the change in religious group affiliations?"

As I thought, the hypocrisy and power attempts of some Christian churches was a major reason...
And also as I thought, the whole "science disproves religion" excuse was not that popular...

Quote:

The reasons people give for changing their religion - or leaving religion altogether - differ widely depending on the origin and destination of the convert. The group that has grown the most in recent years due to religious change is the unaffiliated population. Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most religions.1 Additionally, many people who left a religion to become unaffiliated say they did so in part because they think of religious people as hypocritical or judgmental, because religious organizations focus too much on rules or because religious leaders are too focused on power and money. Far fewer say they became unaffiliated because they believe that modern science proves that religion is just superstition.

Pew Forum: Faith in Flux: Religious Conversion Statistics and Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S.

foundit66 · #53 (**permalink**) 05-06-2009, 02:40 PM

And now for something else I was talking about.
How the YOUTH would recognize the current "activity" (

) of the "church" (or at least the more vocal members of it) and be turned off by it...

Quote:

New research shows young Americans are dramatically less likely to go to church -- or to participate in any form of organized religion -- than their parents and grandparents.

"It's a huge change," says Harvard University professor Robert Putnam, who conducted the research.

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent. However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.

The research will be included in a forthcoming book, called "American Grace."

This trend started in the 1990s and continues through today. It includes people in both Generation X and Y.

While these young "nones" may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.

This movement away from organized religion, says Putnam, may have enormous consequences for American culture and politics for years to come.

Young Americans Losing Their Religion - ABC News

The church will learn the error of their ways, when it starts hitting them harder in their pocket books.
When they can no longer afford to fund movements of intolerance, their intolerant positions will flounder and die off.

As with prejudice before, it changed when the youth didn't adopt the prejudices of the parents. I have no doubt that church membership MAY start to climb back up when the intolerance dies off.

But by the same token, people should think about the WAY that church membership seats are refilled.
I don't know of any statistics, but I would LOVE to know the statistical make-up of church membership along the lines of "My parents told me to believe a certain way since I was born, therefore I do" as opposed to "A friend told me about Jesus, and I came to believe as an adult despite my parents not raising me a Christian".
Cause if the "youth" don't raise their kids in the church, how else are people going to "come to believe"?
I suspect proselytizing is not that significant of a contributor....

Oh well. It's the church's own actions which are bring about its own problems, so I can't really feel sorry for them.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: