Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The American Religious Identification Survey, put out by The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Connecticut, has found that religious belief by Americans has declined in statistically significant ways in the last 19 years.
Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.
"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.
More evidence of a decrease in the influence of traditional religion:
The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.
And the market share of Christianity has declined significantly:
In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.
Yet the percentage of those identifying as Pentecostals remained steady, as did those who attend megachurches that tend to be non-denominational and based around a powerful and charismatic pastor. This might suggest that while the market share of Christianity in the country has declined, the balance within the Christian market has shifted to some degree toward the crazier Christian brands. It would be interesting to see if other measurements bear out that tentative conclusion.
But the key finding here, I think, is that Christianity is losing ground in this country and it is losing it not to other religions but to non-belief.
Politics
Comments
The problem I see here is that many organizations don't take losing ground gracefully. We have seen many instances of what religion can do when it feels threatened. Its a little early to worry about maybe, but I really am concerned about what the crazier brands of Christianity will do in the US if this trend continues.
Posted by: Scott Reese | March 11, 2009 9:19 AM
Scott Reese,
Give me a break.
At any rate, most of us don't feel threatened (he who is in us being stronger than--well you know) and many of us welcome the trend. By lowering the threshold for unbelievers to come out of the atheist closet, the churches are being cleansed. Churches are for believers, not for atheists who feel compelled to attend. This is a win-win.
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 9:27 AM
Praise be unto Dawkins.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | March 11, 2009 9:32 AM
I've been praying for this to happen for so long!
Posted by: Skip | March 11, 2009 9:58 AM
Churches are for believers, not for atheists who feel compelled to attend. This is a win-win. Roast the rest?!
Posted by: kural | March 11, 2009 10:16 AM
The numbers seem to indicate a sharp decline in the 90s that has since leveled off.
Posted by: Taz | March 11, 2009 10:20 AM
heddle, you need to stop acting like you, or the people you know, represent the opinions of all - or even the majority of - Christians. Ed has posted example after example on this very site of people who feel that they're being attacked because their religious dogma isn't official policy anymore: creationists who use every legislative trick they can to keep science out of the classroom; anti-gay bigots struggling to "protect the family"; alleged "Pro-Lifers" who undermine sex education and women's health programs - a.k.a. the best possible methods to reduce the abortion rate - at every turn because doing otherwise would "encourage promiscuity". These people are as real as you are, and they get dangerous when they're thwarted, or even merely "insulted". The Dover plaintiffs received death threats, as did PZ Myers, Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, Cosimo Cavallaro...the list goes on. And these threats are not to be taken lightly, because there's a very real chance that someone will carry them out. Perhaps the name Eric Rudolph means something to you?
Just as one example of who might feel threatened, a quote from Michael Spencer, of the Christian Science Monitor:
Seems like someone is expecting to be treated as they treated others.
Posted by: Seraph | March 11, 2009 10:38 AM
Having gone to New Mexico Tech, most people attending college were very a-religious. When talking philosophically, they didn't particularly care about religion. It's far more interesting to plumb the physics of stars and figure out how to improve performance in a microprocessor; those are things where you might discover something new. Studying religion? Not as exciting for the mathematically oriented. For most of the people I spoke to, the Bible and religion just didn't make logical sense. I don't think we even had a comparative religion class available there.
Plus, we had a rocking GLBT club that put on the best campus parties. We also had a Straight club as well, whose primary purpose was to put on regular parties for everyone (they didn't discriminate either).
We did have a small Christian club and a moderate-sized Muslim club. They never bothered anybody.
At my sister's college in Texas, they had several Christian clubs. They'd have their members carrying wheeled crosses around campus, calling for people to repent their sinful ways.
I don't know; that seems awfully silly and judgmental to me. I was raised as a Christian, but I just don't find that it adds much to my life.
I do think that the moderate people are leaving churches, leaving the churches in the hands of the ideologically inflexible. As churches shrink, I expect we'll see more condemnations of everyone else, and of other religions and minorities in particular.
It's not that unbelievers are leaving, as Heddle postulates, but those who can't resolve the churches' teachings with the real world. Gay marriage threatening to destroy all marriages just doesn't follow logically. You hear that Catholics are all demonic whore worshipers of Satan in some protestant churches. Kinda hard to resolve that teaching if you actually know, work, and play with Catholics. I figure moderates would leave such a church, while the hardcore fundie-types would stick around. Maybe some such churches will become Einstein-Bose condensates of crazy.
The next few decades should be interesting, don't you think?
Posted by: Tenax | March 11, 2009 10:40 AM
If you mean "interesting" in an ancient Chinese curse sort of way, yeah. ;)
Posted by: Ranson | March 11, 2009 10:51 AM
Seraph,
The explanation is obvious. People who complain loudly get the press, not the mainstream.
You need to stop acting as if you know what a majority of Christians believe, just because you read a few news items that naturally highlight the outliers.
I can only repeat what I've said before. If we say that new atheism is roughly 10 years old--well during that time I have been in probably 1500 sermons, Sunday schools, or bible studies. The only time new atheism was ever mentioned is when I brought it up teaching a Sunday School on science.
We don't think about new atheism. We don't talk about it. We don't sermonize about it. We don't worry about it.
By contrast I have probably heard 10 or 15 sermons on post-modern Christianity, several on open theism, etc.
We are rightly more concerned on internecine feuds, not what those outside the church can do to us--which is nothing.
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 10:52 AM
Why Religious Belief on the Decline in America? The answer is people are NOT against God or truth but against dogmatic beliefs and organized religions which state they alone have the exclusive rights to God and truth.
President Reagan once said that he did not leave the Democratic Party; the party left him. Similarly, most who leave religions are saying almost the same . They did not leave their religion. Their religion left them.
Truth and God are universal. No religion, no country has monopoly on it. If every religion frankly state that fact and respect all other religions, all those people who left religions will come back to their respective religions.
For example, even an atheist has the right to condemn Hinduism [ Hindu Culture which is not a religion] in the market and still proclaim he or she is a Hindu and NOT even one Hindu scripture states Hinduism has monopoly on salvation or truth.
Religions are mere paths. They are NOT the final goal. Spiritual maturity and Self Realization are the final goals.
Posted by: AM I A HINDU? Best Seller | March 11, 2009 10:57 AM
They'll bitch and moan for a while, for sure, but ultimately there's nothing that they can do to stem the tide of change. Their goose is cooked.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 11, 2009 11:13 AM
Heddle - What's your opinion of the 'Interfaith' movement? - Curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 11, 2009 11:22 AM
DJ,
Depends what you mean. I am all for freedom of religion and also separation of church and state. I am against organized interfaith activities. Spiritually they make no sense to me. Some people are for them as a sort of joint-front in the culture war, but I don’t think we should be fighting the culture war.
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 11:29 AM
We don't think about new atheism. We don't talk about it. We don't sermonize about it. We don't worry about it.
That is an "in our face" lie, coming from you.
WTF?
Posted by: kamaka | March 11, 2009 11:36 AM
Sadie, if all they do is manage to bitch and moan for awhile I'll be a happy camper and happily let go. My fears stem from the idea that they might get further. Look at heddle's reaction to my statement, he immediately decided I was attacking all of Christianity and ran to the defense. I've seen this reaction more that I care to, a moderate (whether Heddle can actually be called that or not is for other to decide) doesn't agree with what the extreme does, but when the extreme is criticized or moderated by outsiders the moderate jumps to the defense. That behavior can be problematic here in the US and its that sort of mentality that concerns me sometimes when looking across all religions (Christianity has no exclusive use to that particular behavior, we see it in many religions).
Posted by: Scott Reese | March 11, 2009 11:40 AM
Posted by: WScott | March 11, 2009 11:42 AM
kamaka
It is not a lie. We don't talk about it. I suspect you are disappointed--perhaps you want us to be worried and concerned and preoccupied--but for the most part we don't give a crap. Don't the mistake blogs for real life. Most Christians are not like Ken Ham, and most atheists are not like PZ.
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 11:45 AM
Nixon was backed by the "Silent Majority", too. Very convenient, that - the loud ones are isolated nutters, but everyone who doesn't say anything agrees with you.
If it was just a few news stories, you'd be right. A few news stories per week, for years? Plus personal experience? You get a broader picture.
And...outliers? Was it a few outliers who passed Prop 8 in California, and similar bills by wider margins all over the country? Was it a few outliers who voted Bush the Younger into office because they agreed with his moral values? Is it a few outliers who keep stacking school boards with creationists? Good gravy, if the "outliers" can muster that many people, how big is the Silent Majority?
I've attended sermons, too. Pretty bland things, in the main. Usually an analysis of whatever has just been read from the Bible, suggestions of how to apply that wisdom to everyday life, exhortations to do so. Only very rarely have I heard anything about politics or any other kind of controversial issue (though I do have vivid memories of a Catholic priest condemning contraception from the pulpit once when I was younger - for bonus points, the church bulletin that week had an article about fighting world hunger), although I must admit that I've never heard a proper fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist sermon - perhaps I'm missing something?
But you and I both know that communication isn't limited to sermons, and the new atheism (whatever that is) is hardly the only "threat". In fact, I've never heard anyone talk about New Atheism either - but I've heard plenty about liberals, the ACLU, Darwinists, gays, feminists, etc., all of whom are accused of "attacking traditional values".
Trying to claim that there isn't a large percentage of Christians in the country who feel threatened is just plain disingenuous.
And why do they feel threatened? After all, as you say, there's nothing that outsiders can do to hurt them, not so long as the First Amendment is in place. You and I both know that. But do they? Or do they honestly expect
...because that's the way they treated others when they were the ones in power? Looks like.
And as I pointed out before, and you did not refute, these are people who can get dangerous when they feel threatened.
Posted by: Seraph | March 11, 2009 11:46 AM
It's a shame that Methodism and Episcopalianism are the ones declining, because they are some of the most tolerant and liberal denominations. (I don't know much about the stance of Lutheranism.) Maybe the outspoken crazies are driving away the moderates because the moderates don't want to be associated with those extreme beliefs.
Posted by: catgirl | March 11, 2009 11:51 AM
Good grief when they are 'cleansed' of the rational they will be quite literally nuthouses. But I don't think they need cleansed of freethinkers in any event. Most would simply be people who question their faith and over the course of a lifetime have a variety of ideas on the whole religion thing. In other words normal people.
And I have sat through sermons that mention athiests among a vast array of other ideas discussed on these blogs in many churches. Almost all evangelical and baptist. Atheism is just one concept in the overiding war on secularism.
Posted by: JimC | March 11, 2009 11:57 AM
Heddle, perhaps in real life it doesn't come up, but in the blogosphere you are totally pre-occupied with going round and round with atheists.
So spare me the patronising tone.
Posted by: kamaka | March 11, 2009 11:57 AM
Heddle - I just ask because I saw a doco about it recently.
I got the impression that 'Interfaith Practitioners' were genuine individuals who sought to meld faiths by what they had in common. This was not to create a 'untied front in the culture wars', but to reduce conflict caused or exacerbated by religious differences.
In some cases individuals grew up in a mixed religious milieu (Buddhist/Christian, for example) and came to realise that both were talking about the same concepts using differing terminologies because each has developed their own 'argot'.
I was just interested in your thoughts because you seem to have some conservative Christian viewpoints (nothing wrong with that) and your ideas would be a useful touchstone for my own thinking. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 11, 2009 11:59 AM
Well said.
Posted by: Seraph | March 11, 2009 12:02 PM
Seraph
I didn't say that Christians don't vote, I said that for the most part we do not even think about the new atheists. Not on our radar.
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 12:12 PM
Kamaka wrote:
I think you are getting confused here. Heddle may like to expostulate about the evils of the New Atheism on this blog, but he has never denied that (at least not on this comment thread). He merely denies that this happens during the religious services he attends, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | March 11, 2009 12:22 PM
Having lived the majority of my life in a country where there's been a large decline in practicing Christians and where church attendance has been falling through the floor for decades, I can assure you that it is anything but a purification process. If you visit a cross-section of the rump of the Christian community in the UK you will soon find that a reduction of the number of self-identified Christians from 75% of the population to 25% doesn't mean that you will find a much lower proportion of "pretend Christians" attending church. The same pressures that American non-believers feel to attend, are still present there too, as I have witnessed first hand. (And why you think there is a large secret cabal of church-going atheists is beyond me -- undoubtedly there are some, but it's not significant given the overall numbers were talking about.)
Even a cursory look at the numbers behind the survey shows that it's the decline in new converts amongst the young that is the major factor in the trend away from Christianity in the US. (The number of Christians in the older generations is holding remarkably steady, and has done for decades.) This is a much more significant trend than any type of purging and purification of the church of non-believers can account for.
Posted by: tacitus | March 11, 2009 12:34 PM
Interesting. Scott starts out by worrying about what the American Christian community might do if it feels threatened. You scoff at the idea, adding that
I point out that American Christians show every sign of feeling threatened, and that perhaps scoffing at Scott's worry is unwise, as that community has repeatedly proven itself dangerous when threatened.
You respond that no, you do not feel threatened by new atheism (whatever that is). After all, you've never heard a sermon against it.
My response to that was that you may not feel threatened by new atheism (whatever that is), but you (not necessarily you, personally, but American Christian culture, of which you have appointed yourself representative) certainly seem to feel threatened by liberals, the ACLU, Darwinists, gays, feminists, and other aspects of secular culture - as demonstrated by innumerable blog posts, articles, tv shows, public statements, private conversations, and political action.
Oh, and by the way, you never responded to my assertion that maybe Scott's original concerns weren't "Give me a break" - worthy after all.
Your answer to this: We're not worried about that new atheism, nope, nope, nope.
You do realize that people can actually go back and read the thread, right? They can see you moving the goalposts.
Posted by: Seraph | March 11, 2009 12:43 PM
@Tenax:
At my sister's college in Texas, they had several Christian clubs. They'd have their members carrying wheeled crosses around campus, calling for people to repent their sinful ways.
A couple of years ago I was trying to organize something for International Talk Like a Pirate Day where everyone would bring a piece for the cardboard pirate ship and we'd assemble it on The Diag. I had the mast. I had found a cardboard carpet roll and some other shorter cardboard tube. I taped them together like a slumping T, dressed up in my pirate garb, and happily carried it across campus on my shoulders. On reflection, it probably looked like I was carrying a cross. Oops.
Posted by: Toaster | March 11, 2009 12:53 PM
Oh Toaster, we all have our ... um... masts to bear! :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 11, 2009 1:04 PM
Heh, nice one. Though in all seriousness (well some seriousness, which is about as close to serious as I like to get) I've been doing something similar. Not praying per se, but trying to use the instruments of religion to undermine fundamentalism and slavish devotion.
The last few years I've been working to build support for the idea that people give up religion for Lent. Stay with me now. Here's the pitch. One of the central ideas of Lent is self-denial. What could be a greater act of self-denial than giving up the comfort of mother Church? For forty days give up prayer and the expectation that God will provide, attend no services, make no donations, and stop living as if you'll one day be judged by an all-seeing cosmic authority. Instead spend that time working toward what you'd otherwise pray for, connect with friends and family, help others directly, and behave in a way you think is right. By the time Easter rolls around I bet you'll have gained many new insights into yourself, the people around you, religion and your faith.
Unfortunately I haven't had any takers yet. So I think the pitch might need some work. Either that or it’s a stupid idea. But I discount that possibility a ludicrous.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 11, 2009 1:09 PM
Seraph ,
That’s crap. Everyone has (or should have) a working definition of “new atheism.” It sounds smart, I suppose, to keep parenthetically adding “whatever that is” after “new atheism", but it’s just a self-indulgent tactic.
But they don’t—some with a public face are making noise, but that’s what those in the limelight do. BTW, there is a difference between “pointing out” and asserting.
They are gimme-a-break worthy, in the same way that the ID conspiracy theories about atheist scientists are gimme-a-break worthy. We aren’t plotting. We aren't talking about plotting. We are not talking about you at all. Of course a random nut may do something—it’s a big country—but that can happen in either direction. I too get the occasional threatening letter.
Yeah, they can. And if they are honest, they’ll see the goal posts are firmly in place.
Tacitus,
How do you know? What if, for example, the percentage of believers has always been, say, ~10% but cultural pressure from the days when the churches controlled Europe kept the percentages of self-identified Christians and church-goers artificially high? And now with the secularization of society (and acceleration thereof) those pressures are relaxing more and more. That fits the data, and you cannot dismiss it out of hand.
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 1:26 PM
Heddle: "he who is in us being stronger than--"
oh please spare us the details of your sex life...
Posted by: Kevin | March 11, 2009 1:27 PM
It's an interesting survey if you read it in detail. For example, on p. 5 it breaks down each religion or group by raw numbers. In raw numbers, nonreligious people have grown from 14 million to 34 million, an almost 250% increase since 1990. Also, it's clear that most of this increase took place in the 1990s, as the number of nonreligious doubled between 1990 and 2001, so it has little to do with the "New Atheism" movement. What was it about the 90s that made so many people reject religion?
On p. 11 it breaks down each religion by gender. Women outnumber men in every religion except Islam, Eastern religions, and nonreligious. Among nonreligious, men outnumber women 60-40%. Then on p. 12 it breaks down each religion by age group. You can compare that to the background US population. Not surprisingly, Baptists tend to be older, and nonreligious people younger. But Muslims also tend to be quite young. Maybe they have a shorter life expectancy.
On p. 16 they list the percentage of college graduates (over age 25) in each religion: 27% of the entire US population, 16% of Baptists, 13% of Pentecostal/Charismatic, 59% of Eastern religions, 31% of nonreligious.
Interesting stuff.
Posted by: MZ | March 11, 2009 1:40 PM
I still spend several weeks a year in the UK, and while I no longer attend church more than the odd Christmas carol service, I have family and friends who do, and I follow the news closely enough to be aware of the travails of the wider church community too.
Nowhere is there any evidence of any distillation of the faithful going on. Yes, there are some churches that are thriving, but that's always been the case, even in the UK, and it's still the exception and not the rule. Most church's are still like those of my parents and siblings -- rapidly aging congregations made up of a variety of believers, from the staunch to the wishy-washy. This has not changed in the 25 years since I was a young member of my local Methodist church.
Naturally, there will be a bottom reached eventually. Christianity will never die out completely, and there will undoubtedly be rebounds along the way, but believing that churches will someday be left to the true believers (or even a large percentage thereof) is merely a pipe dream.
Posted by: tacitus | March 11, 2009 2:01 PM
tacitus,
Of course there will always be, to use Augustine's terminology, a visible and an invisible church. We have know way of knowing how big, as a fraction of the visible church, the invisible church really is or was. We can presume that it will always be less than one. We can also presume, safely I think, that the fraction reached its apex in the early church, and we can speculate its nadir occurred sometime during the era of the great state churches.
Yes the visible church is declining. But the invisible church might be holding steady or growing. There is no way to tell.
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 2:13 PM
For all the talk of people "leaving the faith," we have to realize that Christians still account for 76.0% of the US population, and this is only down from 76.7% in 2001. There was a huge 10% drop in the 1990s, but the number seems to be quite stable in this decade. Since 2001, nonreligious have only increased from 14.2% to 15.0%. The margin of error of the ARIS survey is 0.5%.
But there's another trend that the ARIS survey doesn't describe. According to ReligiousTolerance.org, quoting Gallup, these are the yearly statistics on regular (last 7 days) church attendance:
1992: 40%
1993: 40%
1994: 42%
1995: 43%
1996: 38%
1997: 40%
1998: 40%
1999: 43%
2000: 44%
2001: 41%
2002: 44%
2003: 41%
As you can see, the numbers really didn't change throughout the 1990s, the same time that overall Christians decreased by 10%. The people who left were the softliners. The US still has the same percentage of hard core believers.
However, those statistics are under dispute. ReligiousTolerance.org believes that only about 21% of Americans attend church weekly, but people tell pollsters they've gone even when they haven't. So regular church attendance may actually have decreased. We don't know.
Posted by: MZ | March 11, 2009 2:17 PM
Don't assume everyone shares your obsessions. I've looked it up now, because you couldn't be arsed to give a definition, and I can't say it helps your case. See below.
There is. I'm pointing out - pointing out that everyone from those who can fairly be described as "in the limelight" down to anonymous responders to blog posts on the internet are acting as if (indeed, in most cases, coming right out and saying that) they feel threatened. You're asserting that, despite all that, the Silent Majority actually does not. Because you say so.
It may be true that you don't feel threatened by the specific movement known as New Atheism, but Scott's original concern was that the American Christian Community might feel threatened by their increase in numbers and influence. When you asserted
(Note the lack of qualifiers), I pointed out that the Christian Community showed every sign of feeling threatened, naming groups and movements that they seemed to feel threatend by, your answer was simply to repeat that you're not afraid of New Atheism. Do all aspects of secular culture count as "New Atheism" to you?
This is a bald-faced lie. You know it, we know it, and you know we know it. Why try?
No, but there are an awful lot of demagogues shouting, and they inspire people to action in ways that evolutionary biologists can't.
False equivalence.
1) Who are the atheist/secularist leaders arguing that Christians should be outlawed, that they should be second-class citizens, or that they are a threat to the survival of the country?
2) Who was the last atheist random nut who, inspired by said rhetoric, decided to bomb a church or shoot a preacher in the name of secularism? In other words, who is the secularist Eric Rudolph?
Someone help me out, here. Is heddle actually delusional, or does he just believe that everyone will accept what he says because he said it?
Posted by: Seraph | March 11, 2009 2:33 PM
Seraph,
Again you didn’t point out, you asserted.
It applies to all the groups you mentioned, in regards to what we discussed in church, say over the last ten years:
1) liberals: never
2) the ACLU: maybe twice. (I remember discussing a case in Sunday School where the ACLU was helping a Christian student who had some artwork rejected for religious content.)
3) Darwinists: never
4) gays: never as a group "gays". Of course the topic of homosexuality does come up occasionally.
It is not a bald face lie and you are an idiot for claiming that it is. I attend a conservative Baptist church. We should be the one’s suffering from paroxysms of despair over the alleged growth of atheism. But we never talk about you at all. Never. Zip point oh. Never discuss any atheist threat. Never discuss the growth in atheism. Never. You are suffering from delusions of grandeur. You are, as a group, simply not important to us. As individuals, of course, we would try to present you with the gospel. But as a movement of some sort---*yawn*.
We would view Dawkins’s comments about child abuse the very same, I suspect, as you would view a religious whacko’s comments about atheists being a threat.
I could ask an equally stupid question, say, who is the Christian Pekka-Eric Auvinen? There are nuts across the spectrum.Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 3:01 PM
One thing to pause and think about though is that these numbers are percentages, not gross figures. Therefore, even assuming that the percentage remains the same, it still means that the number of Pentecostals and megachurch-goers is growing (since churches tend to be used all at the same time and cannot easily grow physically to meet increased demand), all at the same time as "mainline" church attendance declines (both in terms of a percent of a growing population, and in terms of real numbers).
For example, if a population is growing at about 0.88% per year (which happens to be the growth rate of the US population), and a segment of that population remains as a constant percentage of the total, then it, too, grows at 0.88% per year. Since Pentecostals and megachurch-goers remain at a constant percentage, it is fair to assume their total population has increased, thus possibly making it easier to test Ed's hypothesis (and also creating another major avenue of land-use conversion).
Posted by: Umlud | March 11, 2009 3:10 PM
We are not talking about you [atheists] at all.
Actually, given heddle's track record here, that's probably the truth: heddle is perfectly willing to go on for hours about this or that aspect of his or his church's beliefs, but the minute we take the debate outside of his doctrinal lockbox, all of a sudden he buggers off with nothing to say. He's shown time and time again that he simply can't discuss anything that doesn't fit into his preconceived beliefs or his evangelical script. So, to the extent that his actions are representative of his church, it's probably fair to say that they really don't talk about atheists -- because that's a lot easier than acknowledging that atheists exist, have something important to say, and aren't susceptible to the standard manipulative tactics of Christian evangelists.
Posted by: Raging bee | March 11, 2009 3:21 PM
We would view Dawkins’s comments about child abuse the very same, I suspect, as you would view a religious whacko’s comments about atheists being a threat.
In other words, when faced with the insanity and inexcusable evils done in the name of various religions, "we" just dodge the issue altogether by hiding behind false "equivalence" arguments supported by out-of-context misrepresentations of what one atheist said.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2009 3:26 PM
Yo, heddle, let me rephrase the question: how many atheists are known to hijack commercial jets and crash them into tall buildings?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2009 3:28 PM
Ah. I understand now. They can be condemned on Christian web sites (and by Christian-identified responders on blog threads), in Christian magazines, Christian radio and tv shows, and by prominent members of the community, but as long as it's not discussed in church, it doesn't count.
Gotcha.
You're right. It's not a bald-faced lie. Given all the conditions above, what you said is absolutely true, and I take back the accusation of lying.
You view Dawkins as someone with a fanatical, possibly-violent following who could very well get someone killed if he said the right menacing but too-vague-to-prosecute things?
You honestly consider a bullied, mentally ill 17-year-old boy who killed pretty much at random to be comparable to a grown man whose only apparent "mental illness" was fanaticism, who killed in the name of that fanaticism?
...yeah. This isn't going anywhere productive, is it?
Posted by: Seraph | March 11, 2009 3:38 PM
heddle - one quibble point, isn't calling 'athiests' a 'group' (i.e., when you write "We should be the one’s suffering from paroxysms of despair over the alleged growth of atheism. ... But as a movement of some sort---*yawn*.") logically inconsistent with how 'Christian', 'Muslim', 'Jewish', 'Buddhist', etc. are defined? In the latter cases, these groups are defined by a belief in something; a unified common belief in a relation to the supernatural along with a set of common teachings (including written works) of the world and people. On the other hand, an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god. There is no unified common belief and no common teachings. The only social commonality between a Japanese atheist who grew up and live in Japan and an American one who grew up and lives in the US is that they both don't believe in a supernatural (and even that could be a point of contention, since the term "supernatural" is defined differently in Japanese and US social contexts). Therefore, calling atheists 'a group' seems only justifiable as a common-group if you first make the assumption that all religions are equal in terms of forming categories, and therefore anyone not in a religion is in the remaining out-group, and one can therefore name that out-group as 'atheists'. However, a devout Japanese Shinto priest likely shares fewer points of commonality to an American Lutheran pastor than an atheist who grew up in the United States; the US pastor and atheist are more likely to share similar social views as well as common cultural connections - even those tied to religion. However, you would be unjustified to say that the devout Shinto priest is an atheist, even though he might disagree as vehemently (maybe more) about the inerrancy of the Bible, the notion of the Trinity, the concept of Original Sin, the salvation promised by death and resurrection of Jesus, the second coming, etc.
Therefore, instead of lumping atheists in an a weakly defined group, why not just not make the leap between a 'you' directed at a specific atheist person to a 'you' directed at all people who don't believe in a divine being (or beings)? In addition, I seem to recall that you are not immensely fond of being lumped together with extremist Christians (of course I could be wrong here, but it is my recollection); lumping all people rejecting the divine as a single group is analogous, don't you think?
A nicer (and prettier) explanation of my thoughts can be found here (done by Thunderf00t: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw )
Posted by: Umlus | March 11, 2009 3:38 PM
For all that heddle claims to represent the American Christain Community, this study indicates that at best he represents less than 20% of American Christians.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | March 11, 2009 3:45 PM
I wonder how much the trend towards politicization within "evangelical" and "charismatic" sects has to do with their steady numbers. Given how tightly media like The 700 Club has tied those movements to the Republican party, it seems likely that, for those who are part of them, religious and political identity is deeply intertwined, and it may be this in part which explains their greater resistance to the Union's gradual secularization.
Then again, given the iconoclastic and mostly regional character of these movements, I'd assume that educational history has a more pronounced impact that self-identification.
Posted by: Julian | March 11, 2009 3:48 PM
The former although on occasion he will make a salient point. Just never on the subject of religion.
He also must attend a different type of Baptist church than I attend here in Texas as all the things he listed I can here most any Sunday. I used to keep a list to use as a backbone of a book on what what actually talked about in these places.
Posted by: JimC | March 11, 2009 4:10 PM
Raging Bee,
You are using false equivalence in the colloquial manner. This way: One example is advantageous to my side while the other isn't, therefore I'll call it a "false equivalence."
Umlus
I don't think so. People identify themselves as atheists. So there is a broadly defined group "atheists." I would agree that it is nonsense to label atheism a religion, as some try to do.
Yes--and I made that point that all atheists are not nut-jobs when I wrote in an earlier comment "Most Christians are not like Ken Ham, and most atheists are not like PZ." I absolutely do not mean to imply that all atheists are like PZ or Sam Harris, etc. They are not.
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 4:47 PM
You are using false equivalence in the colloquial manner...
And you are dodging the point in your usual manner. So I'll ask you one more time: how many atheists are known to hijack commercial jets and crash them into tall buildings?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2009 4:53 PM
Then don't do it.
Posted by: Umlud | March 11, 2009 4:58 PM
We would view Dawkins’s comments about child abuse the very same, I suspect, as you would view a religious whacko’s comments about atheists being a threat.
Well, in my case, it was child abuse. Years of being forced to listen to their drivel, never daring to question their lies. I knew at age 7 it was all made up and I was forced to participate as if I meant it, under threat of physical punishment, for another ten years.
Seems damned abusive to me.
Posted by: kamaka | March 11, 2009 5:05 PM
This sounds like good news to me. America needs a more open, visible, display of secularists. I think this will be good for Christians too. It will start to change how topics are discussed.
Even if someday America becomes as secular as Sweden, it only takes one big catastrophe to sweep all of that away as the populace rushes to embrace supernatural beliefs that can provide any crumb of comfort or support. Desperation breeds delusion.
When things are going well (or just okay) the stage is set for secular humanism or something like it. When things go terribly horrible, people (statistically) flock to religion and woo. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Posted by: Caliban | March 11, 2009 5:08 PM
Yo, I just looked up Pekka-Eric Auvinen; and I have to say that heddle's attempt to use him, as some sort of proof that atheists are just as capable of extremism and insanity as theists, is beyond ridiculous. Comparing a young, immature, lone lunitic to well-organized adult religious terrorists, is about the most pathetic and dishonest thing heddle has ever said here -- and that's saying a lot.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2009 5:11 PM
Raging Bee,
I won't get in a "atheists killed N people† while theists have killed M people" sinkhole of a debate, because it is stupid beyond belief. I will comment that asking How many atheists have committed (some rare and specific crime?) is particularly asinine.
You are an ass. And a quote-miner. I wrote:
"I could ask an equally stupid question, say, who is the Christian Pekka-Eric Auvinen?"
I was not attempting any sort of proof but demonstrating that arguing by anecdote is not very convincing.
------------------
† Especially when mass-murdering atheists will be conveniently redefined as theists—Stalinism was a kind of religion with Stalin as its deity!
Posted by: heddle | March 11, 2009 5:35 PM
heddle: "I was not attempting any sort of proof but demonstrating that arguing by anecdote is not very convincing."
LOL, it's your favorite form of argument, dude!
Just one example in this thread alone:
"...during that time I have been in probably 1500 sermons, Sunday schools, or bible studies"
How do you not choke on your own hyprocrisy?
Posted by: ildi | March 11, 2009 6:31 PM
I think one of the best ways to reduce religious belief and promote atheism would be to encourage people to read the bible. Start at the beginning. By the time you make it to the story of Joshua and Jericho, if you haven't realized that the 'god' described in the book is a hideous space monster, you've got a learning disability.
I'm convinced most american christians believe god to be a benevolent caregiver, and just assume whatever's in the bible reflects that.
Posted by: steve s | March 11, 2009 8:14 PM
LOL. Yeah, I can't tell you the number of times I've heard that from him.
Commenter: Researchers found that people from Wyoming are 10% more likely to cheat on their taxes.
Heddle: I know one Wyominger, and he has never cheated on his taxes, so that's not true.
I wonder what Heddle was like before he got hit in the head by a schoolbus?
Posted by: charles johnson | March 11, 2009 8:32 PM
No, that doesn't follow from the statistics. A lot of those who say they are "not religious" would, I have no doubt, prefix that with "spiritual but".
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 11, 2009 10:28 PM
No, it's not, which makes me wonder why you use it so much (as others have pointed out). However, an anecdote is often a useful way of illustrating a point that has been made and supported in other ways, which is what I did.
That is a weak argument, it's true. Instead, I would point out that Stalin was a paranoid dictator. He didn't need any more reason to kill people than that. The fact that he was nominally Communist (a philosophy of which atheism is only a part) is largely irrelevant. As for his followers, half their country had been destroyed in WWII. Is it any wonder that they clung to the first strong man to promise to restore order, regardless of what atrocities he ordered them to commit?
In other words, Stalin's atheism was irrelevant to his crimes, while the people Scott and I are discussing might be dangerous because they're deeply religious. Apples and oranges.
Posted by: Seraph | March 11, 2009 11:13 PM
One of the things contributing to my own deconversion from christianity was realising that the beliefs and concerns of my church had very little to do with what was in the New Testament.
For more deconversion stories, see http://www.exchristian.org
Posted by: Paul Murray | March 12, 2009 12:30 AM
MZ | March 11, 2009 1:40 PM:
What? You don't know? It was Clinton's affair, obviously. Don't you remember all that bellyaching about moral decay and what not?
A little oral sex can do a lot of good, I guess.
Posted by: llewelly | March 12, 2009 3:18 AM
Charles Johnson,
You are liar. I never made an argument like that, ever. I defy you to link to where I made such an argument.
Serpah was arguing, like a smug smartass, "Perhaps the name Eric Rudolph means something to you?" Likewise was Raging Bee: "how many atheists are known to hijack commercial jets and crash them into tall buildings?" These are single cases which they extrapolated to grand conclusions. In addition, unlike when someone on their side commits a crime, it is not dismissed as an outlier or mentally ill person etc.—no, these anecdotes are presented as virtually normative behavior.
(And I suspect that while Raging Bee finds it cogent to use flying planes into buildings as a legitimate distinction between theists and atheists he would not, I'm guessing, find it a legitimate distinction between Christians and Muslims. Nor would I--again I'm just pointing out how stupid is is to use that anecdote to reach general conclusions.)
On the other hand, I was arguing: you say these generalities about Christians, well I have a lot of experience with a lot of conservative Christians, and I have seen no or few examples of what you claim. You are arguing stereotypes and caricatures. Not the same at all. If I said "biology professors are militantly anti-Christian" it would be proper for you to point out, if it's true, that in your own experience you know many biology professors and none of them behave that way.
Seraph,
That’s very convenient for you to declare that to be true.
Posted by: heddle | March 12, 2009 4:36 AM
yorumsuz
Posted by: kelebek | March 12, 2009 6:37 AM
On the other hand, I was arguing: you say these generalities about Christians, well I have a lot of experience with a lot of conservative Christians, and I have seen no or few examples of what you claim. You are arguing stereotypes and caricatures.
In other words, heddle, you're using anecdotes to pretend to prove that our observations of the behavior of right-wing "Christians" are invalid; and then saying that arguing by anecdote is invalid when others do it. As ildi said, you're a flaming hypocrite.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 12, 2009 9:17 AM
Heddle said:
It would be appropriate and it would be 'arguing from anecdote.' The problem with arguing from anecdote is not that its inappropriate, its that the argument lacks a lot of convincing power since rarely is your sample size large enough to generalize and is usually skewed by self selection.You (Heddle) do a lot of arguing by anecdote and trying to make it generalizable and I have read those arguments and given them the weight they are due, but by-and-large they are very unconvincing for reasons I just stated. There are many posters that internalize anecdotes and try to use them to argue a point, again its not a strong position to take in argumentation. You, however, decided to criticize others for arguing by anecdote while using said argumentation technique frequently in this thread and others. There was a legitimate criticism bound up in your response, but you didn't formulate it well and ended up saying something hypocritical.
Posted by: Scott Reese | March 12, 2009 9:41 AM
I don't think "People have, in fact, gotten killed for offending Christian religious sensibilities in this country, so the possibility of violence from those that Scott identified as 'the crazier brands of Christianity'as they watch their numbers and influence wane should not be scoffed at" is a very grand conclusion. Especially considering that others who offend Christian religious sensibilities are threatened with death on a regular basis. You did see the list of examples I posted earlier? Nor is it limited to a few "threatening letters", as you so glibly put it. Melissa McEwan had people coming to her house after Bill Donohue declared her "anti-Catholic" (which, if he'd been Muslim, would have been called what it is: issuing a fatwa).
Pekka-Eric Auvinen was mentally ill. Simple fact. Part of his problem might have been a bad reaction to his meds. Take a look.
Sure is. Got a counter-argument better than "Sure, you would say that" (a.k.a. the dictionary definition of "ad hominem")? Here's a possible angle: I argued that Stalin's behavior was no different than that of any other paranoid dictator - that is, based on personal fear and hunger for power, rather than ideologically motivated. Do you have any examples of him behaving differently than other paranoid dictators, in a way that could be explained by his ideology? As an example of what I'm talking about, compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Saddam Hussein killed Shi'ites and Kurds because they were hostile to his faction, the Sunnis. Hitler, on the other hand, killed millions of people who were no threat, because he - as far as we can tell - genuinely believed his ideas on racial purity.
If you can find such an example, is it specifically related to his atheism, the way Eric Rudolph's bombings and Melissa McEwan's stalkers' harassment was related to their religious beliefs?
Posted by: Seraph | March 12, 2009 10:36 AM
Seraph,
Yes, and your example of Eric Rudolph--I guess you "know" him to be of sound mind and body. And you also "know" that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his crimes. You know a lot of things by the school of pulling them out of your ass and asserting them as facts.
I don't need a counter-argument about Stalin. First of all I am not making any claims about Stalin. Second, a counter-argument implies that an argument was made that you can, in fact, counter. You lidless-eye "knowing" that Stalin's atheism was irrelevant is not an an argument.
Like I said, it's a big country. Theists get threatened just like atheists do. There are nuts on both sides, though it appears that you "know" that those on your side are only behaving badly, in the extremely rare cases when they do, because they are off their meds. Probably the most obvious recent example is that numerous people were threatened, including their homes, businesses, and families, for their support of proposition 8. Churches were also vandalized--some that even were largely opposed to prop 8. I suppose that you "know" that these crimes were committed by liberal Episcopalians against more conservative theists who actually deserve being threatened.
Posted by: heddle | March 12, 2009 11:19 AM
Yes, and your example of Eric Rudolph--I guess you "know" him to be of sound mind and body.
Has anyone produced any evidence that Rudolph was/is insane? You sure haven't.
And you also "know" that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his crimes.
Yes, we know this because the objectives and consequences of his actions had nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with being a paranoid dictator (just like those found in overtly theist societies) with too much power and too little checks and balances.
You know a lot of things by the school of pulling them out of your ass and asserting them as facts.
...says the guy who can't seem to refute, or even honestly address, a single one of those facts. It's painfully obvious, heddle, that the defensive/dismissive tone of this paragraph of yours is in response to arguments you can't otherwise address within the confines of your doctrinal lockbox.
Theists get threatened just like atheists do.
Yeah, mostly (if not wholly) by other theists.
There are nuts on both sides...
...and yet you can't seem to come up with sufficient examples of nuts on "our" "side" comparable to the insanity that is, in many obvious cases, deeply ingrained in the very doctrine and thought-patterns of many long-established religions, including Islam and Christianity.
The big difference between theists and atheists, is that the nuts on the theist side see their irrational, insane, and downright dangerous thought-patterns reflected in the doctrines of their religion, and the very patterns of thought used to justify and reinforce those doctrines. This has been ponted out to you before, in plain English, and every time it is, heddle, you ignore it and run away.
Posted by: Raging bee | March 12, 2009 11:44 AM
When half of our population are non-believers,as it is in Sweden, or four out of ten people are atheists, as it is in France, then we will have arrived at something close to a secular Utopia. Still, I find the fact that more Americans have abandoned irrationality and superstition a very encouraging one.
Posted by: Raymond Minton | March 12, 2009 4:38 PM
THe fact is most are realizing that the fairy tale world of religion isnt true. We were not created by an invisible man and all the fairy tales in the bible arent true. Science has tried its hardest to prove them true but hasnt happened. I will not rule out a creator theory, but its not the white bearded guy with saints around him and angels
Posted by: Will B | December 30, 2009 12:51 PM