America's nonreligious are a growing, diverse phenomenon. They really don't like organized religion
America's nonreligious are a growing, diverse phenomenon. They really don't like organized religion
Ask Americans what their religion is, and nearly 1 in 3 say this -- none. That’s according to the U.S. adults surveyed by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled.
Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades.
“Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't mind organized religion. What I do hate is that religion pushing their beliefs onto everyone they meet, pushing their religion beliefs throughout school systems, etc. If religious can keep to themselves, I see it like yoga or CrossFit.
A crossfit trainer, an ex-marine, and a born-again christian all walk into a bar.
We know that, because they won't stop telling everyone.
I'm surprised this comment has lasted 6 hours without anyone saying "there's no such thing as an ex-marine"
I, too, am disappointed by the lack of offended ex-marine comments.
why ?
Because SEMPER FI !!! OOORAH!!
Clearly, you haven't met crossfitters
Clearly you don't own an airfryer
Or an instapot!
Or an ARCH user.
No, but my wife wants us to :(
Don't give in. Just get a good oven for everything and it's the same
Or a bidet
Obviously you're not a golfer
IDK about equalizing religion and yoga. At minimum, the yoga exercises seem pretty useful for getting a flexible and healthy body, and (judeo-christian) religous ceremonies are mostly just a reason for people to get together, which many other activities can do as well.
The positives that people get from religion are mostly about the feeling of being part of a community, with their own lore, rules, codex and ceremonies. Just like DnD groups, with the major difference that some members actually belief all of that stuff, which is spooky and dangerous, because that opens these people to all sorts of other crazy ideas.
If religious can keep to themselves
Since religions compete, that doesn't sound feasible.
Although all religions are useless and shouldn't have any privilege, only to be practiced in their own spaces, I am aware that not all religions compete in a proselytistic way. I understand that, for example, Judaism doesn't proselytise and that "converting" to Judaism is even a long and difficult process, which makes me think it is like discouraging conversion, in some way, by making it so uphill.
Permanently Deleted
Pretty sure you can be born into judaism, though. Chances are, it is even the default scenario with even semi-religious parents.
That's not "keeping to yourself" to me. That's like passing the cigarettes to your kids.
Yeah, I agree, to a certain point. Most Jewish people I know, though, aren't religious at all but for following certain traditions that don't even include eating kosher food. Of course that doesn't include orthodox Jews, but I don't know any.
As for the training of it ("That's not "keeping to yourself" to me. That's like passing the cigarettes to your kids" and the "default scenario"), well, it's the default upbringing in every family. Besides exceptions, conservative parents will raise conservative kids because that's their growing environment, the same with more liberal ones, etc. That's not proselytising, it's a while different thing
That’s not proselytising, it’s a while different thing
I don't see your point. How is brainwashing children ok when wololo-ing people is not? Even from an egocentric perspective, you have to live in a society.
I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall. Would you mind pointing at the part where I said so
itor even implied so?What I said is that that isn't proselytising. It's a different concept to raise your kids in a certain way and to go to others who already have a different faith (or none) and try to convince them to convert.
Of course, I know that everyone is born without any religion and by that account the limit is blurred, yet to raise a kid into one's own faith and/or traditions is not the same as proselytising.
As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it's not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don't judge it as bad or as good, I don't care. I just state a fact as I've seen/read.
Edit: word
I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall.
Fair enough, you didn't. I apologize. I lost track of the chain of posters and mixed you up with the first poster who didn't seem to recognize the dangers of passing belief to children.
As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.
That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn't seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.
Apologies accepted, of course.
That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn't seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.
On one hand, I agree. Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive. I mean, ultraorthodix Jews are as fanatical as your fellow Taliban or the right-wing Christians.
Thanks for this exchange of opinions.
Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive.
Yes, that's what I'm counting on, since I assume that ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution. Unfortunately, the most whackiest, edgiest religions seem to be the most fit. Therefore my answer to the top level post.
I mind the normalization of magical thinking. It's the same reason I bristle at astrology and tarot and luck charms.
And that has a whole bunch of negative consequences, because these people won't listen to reason if it inconveniences them
Unfortunately you can't have religion without people trying to evangelize. It's part of the problem.
But... you can. It already exists
its like they dont realize that christianity isn't the only religion in the world
Yeah, sort of funny. A good number of religions are hard to convert to (or don't take converts). Partially because religion in human history has been a tool for a community to distinguish why they are better than outsiders. A lot of older religions died from this exclusivity.
That's not correct. Where I live, religion is intertwined with daily life and yet nobody ever tried to talk me into anything
There's a world of difference between "you should join my religion, we don't eat fish" and "my religion says you can't eat fish."
Agreed
Atheism and science are also a type of religious belief. Ultimately, as long as someone isn’t hurting anyone else or trying to force their beliefs on others, I don’t care what they believe.
lmao
Could you expand your thoughts on this?
I'm always curious when this is said as to what is meant when Atheism and science are called religious.
"ThEy AlL rEqUiRe FaItH"
It's a gross misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation.
Yeah, that's the standard line they give.
I find it's usually intentional misrepresentation.
Sure. To be clear, I’m an engineer and an atheist so I don’t mean it to attack either Athiesm or science by any means.
To start with, we cannot get true knowledge of the world outside ourselves by sensory perception alone. Rather, the way we interpret our sensory inputs is by applying it to some metaphysical framework of how we believe the outside world works.
As a small example, Descartes famously brought up analogy of a melting candle. A totally naive person being born into existence would see melted wax and hardened wax as two different substances. Sensory perception alone would lie to this person. Only by interpreting it through this metaphysical framework do we come to the conclusion that melted wax and hardened wax are the same thing at different temperatures.
This extends to deeper concepts that we can’t directly explain by our experience alone. At some point we stop using our own direct experience and expand our metaphysical framework using something else.
The thing that springs from that “something else” is religion, and in many instances it doesn’t necessarily encompass a concept of divinity or worship. In abrahamic religions it is the Judeo-Christian god. In Daoism it’s the belief in the Dao, an unexplainable force tied to the events of the natural world. In science it’s belief in the scientific method’s ability to produce objective truth with sufficient cooperation and experimentation. They’re all models of the outside world that stem from something beyond a single individuals sensory perception.
Spiritual faith and faith in the scientific method are not the same.
Scientific knowledge is SUPPOSED to be challenged and changed as we gain new information. Religious faith is expected to be accepted without question and regardless of information.
Spiritual faith and faith in the scientific method are not the same.
They’re both belief systems pertaining to knowledge of the universe beyond your immediate perception
Scientific knowledge is SUPPOSED to be challenged and changed as we gain new information.
Of course. However, the central tenet of science doesn’t rely on scientific knowledge but the scientific method itself and it’s assumed power to find objective truth. Any questions about the viability of the scientific method to find objective truth tend to be aggressively rejected.
Religious faith is expected to be accepted without question and regardless of information.
This isn’t necessarily true. There are some religions that have no authoritative text, central authority, or official dogma; they encourage new perspectives in the nature of the universe. Daoism is one.
Atheism? Sure some New Atheist branches practice it like a faith
Science? It's a tool for measuring things... it is about as much of a religion as a ruler
Science? It's a tool for measuring things... it is about as much of a religion as a ruler
It’s not, it’s a system that seeks to understand our world at a deeper level and predict future events.
It’s funny you mention that, though, because it brings up one of the difficulties in science. Measurements we base our scientific theories on rely on instruments, most of which themselves rely on other theories for reliable operation and interpretation of data.
One philosopher of science famously brought up the analogy of a surveyor who doesn’t understand magnetism. He attempts to use a compass as a surveying tool near some hidden source of magnetic field. Without understanding of the underlying principles of magnetism and local magnetic field, he would assume the compass unfailingly points north and the resulting measurements of the local geography would be wrong. Those flawed measurements might then be used by geologists, leading to the development of theories supported by flawed data.
There is always a degree of uncertainty in the instruments we use to develop and test our hypotheses because there is no such thing as certain knowledge in science. However, at some point we simply put faith in the scientific method and presume that our underlying theories are sufficiently accurate for our purposes and proceed accordingly.
Your surveyor story sounds like something a christian apologist would say, or someone who doesn't know the difference between science and religion.
Even stone age people knew the difference between East and West. If a surveyor incorrectly used a compass his work could still be verified by looking at a goddamn sunrise. If the surveyor ignored the conflicting data and, as you say "put his faith in his instruments", it ceases to be the scientific method and becomes dogmatic fanaticism.
Do you not understand what a thought experiment is? It’s an exaggerated example to better illustrate a concept, in this case the concept that reliable calibration and use of instruments is itself based on some underlying theory of operation.
Even stone age people knew the difference between East and West. If a surveyor incorrectly used a compass his work could still be verified by looking at a goddamn sunrise. If the surveyor ignored the conflicting data and, as you say "put his faith in his instruments", it ceases to be the scientific method and becomes dogmatic fanaticism.
If it helps you understand the concept, imagine that the source of error is very weak, only disturbing the compass by a few degrees at any given location.
Doubt