Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says

reply to post by edmc^2

part of it imho is also is lazyness and accountability.

Why is a disbeliever less accountable than a believer. We have ZERO evidence of god intervening or punishing anyone ever...what keeps us in check are laws, and norms imposed and accepted by society. According to the bible, you could own a slave and it would be perfectly acceptable...luckily our modern laws won't allow that atrocity.

They also see religion as an impedement to progress and see it as antiquated.

That's because it often is. Take evolution for example, which is wrong according to the bible...yet we're using findings of the theory in modern medicin and there's nothing debunking it. But many Christians chose to ignore the facts and continue in a hypothesis (genesis) that is demonstrably wrong.

With the rise of cheap education, people are starting to wake up...

Time is also a big factor - and Europe seems to be running out it.

As someone who currently lives in Europe...there is no place where Sharia law supersedes western law. You're fear mongering...

I'm simply stating that Christianity is a minoriy on these continents /or part of the world. Us such their influence is not as strong as that of Islam.

Just like Islam isn't as strong over here...

It's not a "christian persecution complex" if you're the one being persecuted. But again that's not the point of my reply.

If you live in the US, no one's stopping you from believing whatever you want as long as you don't impose it on others...

As for the extremist - you know who they are but again - ALL Christians are branded as one.

Simply not true...only the ones spreading Glenn Beck'esque Sharia fear mongering messages...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Debunker75

 

To uphold a lack of belief in deity is to hold a belief

Reread what you just wrote, it's beyond hilarious. So an absence of belief requires belief. So a dead man needs to be alive to be dead? And a hungry man needs to be fully fed to be hungry?

That makes no sense whatsoever

It makes sense just fine if you've the mental capacity to grasp it.

So ...YES to your questions, though not exactly in the way they were so.... badly-stated
I expect next you'll try telling me that a belief in nothing is indicative of the absence of belief, too

reply to post by MrXYZ

As someone who currently lives in Europe...there is no place where Sharia law supersedes western law.

Well if that's the case then I stand corrected, but as it is that's what were getting from news reports (CNN, FOX, ,NBC, etc, Internet)

You're fear mongering...

I agree to disagree...but what are u in fear of?

Just like Islam isn't as strong over here...

Hopefully you're correct - but time will tell.

If you live in the US, no one's stopping you from believing whatever you want as long as you don't impose it on others...

What??? you mean like the Sharia law? Impose by force? All we're doing is conversing - every one as you said is free to believe what they want to believe.

I suggest you stop using such words - in free society. Opps - am I impossing? Sorry.

Simply not true...only the ones spreading Glenn Beck'esque Sharia fear mongering messages...

Yeah I've seen those type of people...wait are u implying I'm one of them?

I hope not...

thx,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

Well if that's the case then I stand corrected, but as it is that's what were getting from news reports (CNN, FOX, ,NBC, etc, Internet)

I've lived in the US a few times over the years (Cali, NYC, Boston, Hawaii), and the quality of news (especially FOX) has been going down hill a lot. Think about it: FOX actually tried to enter Canada, but pulled back when the Canadian government told them they can't lie during news segments! That's how bad news have gotten in the US!

It's really quite sad, and it's why I'm often not really surprised to hear misinformation. I've travelled all over the Middle East, and have visited every single European country except for Lithuania, and trust me when I say this...Sharia will NEVER supersede western law in Europe, and in all those years travelling around Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Tunisia, and one time Yemen, I never had an issue. The regular people on the streets were always friendly, to my surprise even in Yemen. I totally disagree with their belief, just like I disagree with Christianity (as you might have noticed), but it never prevented me from getting along with them.

That's why I get agitated when I hear people like Glenn Beck claim 10%+ of Muslims are terrorists. If that were true, I'd be long dead by now.

I agree to disagree...but what are u in fear of?

Honestly? I'm worried the people of this planet blow themselves up in pointless, irrational wars based on beliefs (religious or otherwise) that aren't backed up by objective evidence. Gaddafi telling his soldiers the others have been poisoned by Nescafe, or the US invading Iraq for WMDs that they KNEW weren't there, or suicide bombers blowing up innocent people, or people shooting abortion doctors because of their belief even though they live in a SECULAR country. THAT scares me!

We have so much to worry about, the economy, natural disasters, a shortage of water and food, thousands dying of diseases every single day, and the list goes on. But instead of focusing on those real issues, we focus on ridiculous stuff like "my god is better than your god" or "the Christian soldiers have to prevent Sharia law from taking over" and other ridiculous missions.

Wanna know what's one of the things we should really be worried about?



The thing is, I don't expect everyone to know what's really going on. Not everyone's able to travel like I could, and directly experience the people instead of some propaganda news (on all sides). But it's really hard to hear so many intolerant statements after realizing that we're not that different no matter where we come from.

I spent 2 weeks in Saudi Arabia during Ramadan for work (real estate development 50km from Makkah). During that time, I didn't see a single white person other than myself. The people don't eat during the day, but at night, it's one big party. I was all alone there, but got invited several times by total strangers that asked me to sit with them. Of course religion came up during all that, as it's a religious holiday over there. They found out I'm an atheist, but not a single time did anyone say anything negative. They answered a lot of questions I had though, and we just had a normal conversation about wether or not I like the landscape, what I'm doing here, what food I like best, and so on. Pretty much stuff you would talk about anywhere else...

On the other hand, the parents of good friends of mine in Cali are very very religious Christians who go to church at least once a week, and the kids are in the choir. Like with the Muslims I met, I totally disagree with their belief. Doesn't change the fact that we still get along very well...in fact, I've known them for over 25yrs now. When they pray before dinners, I just sit there and politely try to figure out which part of turkey I'll go for, and they're cool with that. They know I'm not big on religion, and that's that. They also didn't have a problem when I brought over a Muslim friend I studied with, it was a total non issue.

What I'm trying to say is this, on both sides, the extremists are the issue. The hardcore evangelicals who believe this is some 2nd version of the crusades or fight of good vs evil, as well as the Muslim fundamentalists who blow themselves up are messing it up for the rest of us who aren't that disimilar. They are a MINORITY. Most of us just want to live in peace, make enough $$$, and be healthy. We have different views, but that's our right...if they wanna believe in Allah, so be it. If you wanna believe in God, fine. Same with the Spaghetti monster, I really don't care. But this irrational hatred and fear mongering has to stop. It's also really bad for business...so please:

STOP!

PS: Watch Anthony Bourdain's trip to Saudi Arabia to see the typical average Muslim family. And then tell me if you would fear them, or if you really believe those people are a threat to you.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by hawaii50th

 

In the name of Jesus Christ, begone Satan.

Have you ever considered that it is precisely the kind of attitude reflected in your words which may be condemning the Christian fundamentalist religion to an eventual extinction?

No, I don't believe in watering it down.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by bogomil

 

Personally my own impression of the majority of religionists is, that they are perfectly capable of living in reasonable peace with the rest of mankind. It's your ilk creating the problems and also giving religion a bad name.

my "ilk" - you must have mistaken me for someone else. May I know specifically what you're referring too?

why the personal attack?

thx,
edmc2

Don't take it personal,you'll always run into that kind of response.

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by hawaii50th

 

In the name of Jesus Christ, begone Satan.

Have you ever considered that it is precisely the kind of attitude reflected in your words which may be condemning the Christian fundamentalist religion to an eventual extinction?

No, I don't believe in watering it down.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f75284c44e5.jpg[/atsimg]

No matter how irrational, illogical, and wrong that belief is when it comes to certain aspects of modern life? If everyone thought like you, not adapting to an increase in knowledge and changing environment, we'd still live in the middle ages.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ce4f6bc4950.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/716a678b6aca.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce6b3130af46.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb43c0fac5dd.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by MrXYZ

To the spiritually dead yes it would be illogical, irrational, and wrong. Modern life is just that and nothing else.
It all depends on how you use that knowledge that makes the difference, and that's the problem it's not used in it's proper way. If arrogance was a good and positive trait, what a wonderful world it would be, cause there's so much of it in abundance.

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

To the spiritually dead yes it would be illogical, irrational, and wrong. Modern life is just that and nothing else.
It all depends on how you use that knowledge that makes the difference, and that's the problem it's not used in it's proper way. If arrogance was a good and positive trait, what a wonderful world it would be, cause there's so much of it in abundance.

I'd like to think we live our lives based on objective information, logic, and rationality...rather than unsubstantiated stories from 2000 years ago. After all, in nature you either adapt or go extinct. Right now, the statistics show that the fundamentalists are slowly going extinct...and imo that's a good thing.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

To the spiritually dead yes it would be illogical, irrational, and wrong. Modern life is just that and nothing else.
It all depends on how you use that knowledge that makes the difference, and that's the problem it's not used in it's proper way. If arrogance was a good and positive trait, what a wonderful world it would be, cause there's so much of it in abundance.

I'd like to think we live our lives based on objective information, logic, and rationality...rather than unsubstantiated stories from 2000 years ago. After all, in nature you either adapt or go extinct. Right now, the statistics show that the fundamentalists are slowly going extinct...and imo that's a good thing.

See, it's just history repeating itself only on a more massive scale. What all you people of no faith forget is that many empires before, went this same path. There gods were material wealth, beliefs in different deities, magic, sorcery, philosophy, mythology, paganism, and so forth. Every empire that went this route fell, as is the one today called democracy. You never remember the lessons of the past, you either want to live in the past of unforgiving and blame, or you think you know a better way. And it always turns sour in the end.
That's the way it has to be, but this time there will be a big difference, like I said earlier, this rejection of God is on a massive scale. It involves the whole planet, not like in the past where it were only certain empires. The reason today though is because with the advancing technology, it has made the planet a very small community. It also made it a much more dangerous planet where mankind has the means to destroy himself completely.
The destiny of men is to bring themselves almost to the brink of an end, and it's because of stubbornest.
But it won't end by man's hand, there will be a divine hand that will save earth from total destruction. That will be the time when whoever is left will finally know in their hearts that there is a God, and every knee will bow. The realization will be so clear and all will understand God and will accept Him.
Until that time, everyone will continue to go on their merry way, and live life like there's no tomorrow.
There is a change coming, life will be very different from the way we know it, it will come when everyone least expects it. And that change has already began but most don't see it.
That's okay, it's got to be what it's got to be.

reply to post by hawaii50th


So wait...are you seriously claiming the Mayans, Incas, and all the other people that died out did so because they worshipped the wrong god (the one you don't agree with)....are you serious?

You might wanna open a history book

There is a change coming, life will be very different from the way we know it, it will come when everyone least expects it. And that change has already began but most don't see it.

People have said "the end is near" and similar hogwash for thousands of years...guess what, their track record is god awful

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by hawaii50th

 

In the name of Jesus Christ, begone Satan.

Have you ever considered that it is precisely the kind of attitude reflected in your words which may be condemning the Christian fundamentalist religion to an eventual extinction?

No, I don't believe in watering it down.

The "begone Satan" thing was originaly directed at me; here are my comments:


Your undiluted fundamentalism comes across in the form of ideological fascism, based on circularly argumented absolutes, with clear intentions of monopoly as an aim.

The rules of liberal society also allows for people like you (on par with fanatics from e.g. nazism, Stalinism and Jihad) to a certain extent. You, like everybody else, have the freedom of choosing your ideological position and the freedom to express it. You DO NOT have the right to put yourself above this egalitarian principle by interfering with other peoples' freedom in such a way, that this leads to practical consequences for them.

There are both legalistic and co-sensus applications of this. I guess, that the general european version is more restrictive, so saying: "(The N-word) or homosexuals are inferior, and this should lead to practical consequences correcting the situation to fit with MY absolutes" is in Europe usually a criminal act, and can be prosecuted by society.

Then there's ofcourse fundamentalistic fringes, which want to topple liberal society per se, through the use of invasive methods.

You seem to balance on the brink between using your individual freedom and propagating for the totalitarian system you represent, and it doesn't surprise me at all, that your participation on ATS mainly consists of one-way propaganda, the details of which you refuse to explain further; instead staying safely with semantic dodgings.

But your extremist postulates aren't worth a dime, unless you relate them to the reality, which we outside your self-contained holy bubble live in. So for the umpteenth time I repeat a variation of my questions to you:

"Where is the generally acceptable justification for your pushing your own subjective absolutes on mankind. And what would the practical consequences of that be on a down-to-earth level?"

Do you want a totalitarian society, model theocracy? How are e.g. homosexuals to be 'treated' so they become free of their 'mental illness'?

Such questions aren't 'constructed'. They are a very existing reality for liberal democracy, which constantly has to protect itself against all kinds of onslaughts on its principles and its actual existence.

It's not that I have big hopes of ever recieving honest or straight answers from you on this. My background and the questions arising from it are clearly 'satanic' (which you in your fanatic black/white mindset then can brush away as being 'below' you), but remember that you're here as an ambassador for your special version of christianity. What you don't say, but only hint at, counts as much as what you DO say.

Originally posted by Debunker75

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Debunker75

 

To uphold a lack of belief in deity is to hold a belief

Reread what you just wrote, it's beyond hilarious. So an absence of belief requires belief. So a dead man needs to be alive to be dead? And a hungry man needs to be fully fed to be hungry?

That makes no sense whatsoever

It makes sense just fine if you've the mental capacity to grasp it.

So ...YES to your questions, though not exactly in the way they were so.... badly-stated

I expect next you'll try telling me that a belief in nothing is indicative of the absence of belief, too

edit on 3/28/2011 by Debunker75 because: edited out 'ignorantly-stated' b/c I'm nice like that.

Since you openly indicate the need for 'mental capacity to grasp it', I would invite you into the world of extended 'mental capacity', where the whole question is considered from this mental height you're talking about.

Not that the 'atheism is a kind'a religion' postulate is important for me (as I'm not an atheist), but accuracy, proper use of general semantics, a certain amount of intellectual honesty and informedness ARE important to me, because it is an antidote to deflectionary, semantic and irrational maneuvers very often used in theist argumentation.

So at this advanced mental level you seem to suggest that YOU are at, I take it for granted, that you are familiar with the various and somewhat different definitions of 'faith', 'belief' and their religious versions. That you are familar with the use and validity of inductive-category reasoning, in the context of applying definitions to a hopefully rational end, and that you are familiar with epistemology, as this unavoidably and eventually is where such a process would end, if it's carried to its limits.

Don't worry if this sounds pompeous, it's not so bad as it sounds, and my own position is only that of an interested layman with a functional intellect, who auto-didactically has put some public information together in a systematic methodology fitting for this little semantic analysis.

Well, for all I know, you may be better informed, wiser, more intelligent and less biased than me. But that isn't immediately obvious from your posts, which sofar have stayed mainly on the "is...isn't...is...ISN'T" level, maybe because you believe, that you haven't met your proper intellectual counterpart yet.

So you and I can have a friendly, but olympian sparring-match, leavíng vulgar and stupid people behind us.

Not that I insist on being that much of a mental giant, but at least I can join you part of the way to mental sumpremacy. And btw, I certainly don't expect the 'atheism as....' postulate to be closed forever, as scholastics is so integrated in christian mindsets, that it will stay there for generations to come.

Ladies and Gentlemen...

This thread is getting increasingly confrontational, and personal. That's going to stop. Or staff will stop it for you. Manners and decorum are not optional, folks. If you can't discuss the issue politely, you may want refrain.

The topic is:


Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says.

We aren't discussing each other or our beliefs, or each others. At least not in the context that some of you have begun using.

Nine nations. Not each other.

reply to post by bogomil
I can't comment on your post in detail because I really am that nice and... obviously, after the warning above, it'll inevitably be considered a personal attack. I don't feel such a common sense topic is worth being banned over but I will apologize to you and and all others for my semantic mistake. By 'mental capacity,' I meant 'level of open mindedness,' not level of intelligence or intellect.Thank you for commenting, though, because your post highlighted the fact that while it's a good thing to have both, one very clearly has nothing to do with the other.

Mental supremacy isn't my goal, by the way. It's the wrong journey down the wrong path leading to a detrimental end. Two points of view have obviously run rampant in this thread, but it seems that in all actuality, a very interesting grey area that people choose to ignore, exists more than anything, that's all. But I'll leave you to your incongruity though, keeping in mind that there are so many ffuqs on here, shrugging at my wishful thinking, and won't be making further comment. [past the next one to the admin].

Peace!

reply to post by seagull
Thank you for saying that. I'm sorry and promise to stay on topic (albeit, elsewhere). I hope the conversation on this thread gets better and more understanding from now on.

Using the linked article from OP as my basic reference:

Quote from the article: ["Dr Wiener continued: "In a large number of modern secular democracies, there's been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%."]

While I do not consider the methodology used for arriving at this as conclusive (this methodology being a mathematical model PROBABLY being functional; but as with all other 'soft' social science it hasn't got the same weight as 'hard' science results), it can be considered from parallel situations, I'm familiar with myself. Though from a different set of measuring parameters.

Including other, but similar nations to those included in the article, is justified by

Quote from the article: ["However, Dr Wiener told the conference that the team was working to update the model with a "network structure" more representative of the one at work in the world."]

indicating, that what has been said earlier on this thread on better global access to information etc plays an important role.

In this context, as an affirmative of the suggestions of the study from the article, I have formerly mentioned european countries with a similar trend of secularization, where more directly related statistics can be used. Such as the extent of practically professing religious individuals and/or their political representation. In my own country (based on some years old statistics) 6-8% 'active' christians (of the total population). Today realistically down to probably 5%.

So far so good. And in any case there has not been much disputing this in the thread.

The 'disputing' starts with the whys and hows, so

Quote from the article: ["It (the measure-premises, my insert) posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility."]

My personal opinion is, that even if 'safety in numbers' (=belonging to bigger social groups) may have some attraction, it's not the main reason for growing secularization. Secular societies can be a motley crowd of many various cultural subsets, not polarized in two-optional 'us' and 'them' polarities. So even if people like to gang up, there are many gangs to choose between.

So I am more inclined to believe in the second suggestion from the above citation: "Utility". Something I also formerly have opinioned to be a major factor, originating from pragmatic down-to-earth considerations of mankind, seeking a place on the sunny side of the street.

On this I venture a postulate: Religion will decline globally, as long as the utilitarian benefits of secular, liberal democratic society exists. Utilitarian benefits include ethical considerations also, as secular society (in the form of liberal democracy, which is the current system in all the examples used) actually can demonstrate a 'greater good for all' than theist societies.

In this scenario there will be no religions taking over vacuums left by established, but disappearing, religions. NOTHING indicates such a development, which at best only is a speculation furthering "what did I tell you" attitudes.

I'm aware, that I'm just summing up the thread in a not very interesting way, but I hope, that this somehow can bring the theist positions of trans-mundane claims legitimately back to the discussion. It's a bit meaningless to discuss growing secularization on a statistical/mathematical basis without genuine theist involvement on its own terms.

And on general principles I can understand the request of less personal attacks (there must be a limit somewhere). Though personally I'm not bothered about the negative name-calling sent my way; I have been exposed to worse on other threads, where it wasn't stopped.

reply to post by Debunker75


Sincerely......thanks for your gracious answer, and with an assurance that I correspondingly can be housebroken on occasion.

I enjoyed your use of the word incongruity, indicating that you're not without humour or a sense of chinese boxes or going down the rabbit hole.

A pity though. It could have been interesting AND relevant to see this through.

reply to post by edmc^2


On the present note of reconciliation..... the word 'ilk' isn't condescending or derogatory. Basically it means a group or category; in the case where I used it meaning the collective of christians with evangelistic intentions.

It may be interesting to note that in Australia, according to the 2006 census, Christianity was the only religion in a state of decline.

Religion in Australia

According to the census, the fastest growing religions during the intercensal period between 2001 and 2006 were: Hinduism by 55.1 percent, Non-religion by 27.5 percent, Islam by 20.9 percent, Buddhist affiliation increased by 17 percent, and Judaism by 6 percent. Christianity was the only religion to show negative growth, with the number of followers falling by 0.6 percent.

The percentage increase of Hinduism was twice that of non-religion, and there was a substantial increase in Islam and Buddhism.

It would appear that there is a strong trend toward religious diversity in parallel with a decline in any religious belief.