Good news from the Barna Group, a Christian polling organization:
Atheism on the Rise
For Gen Z, “atheist” is no longer a dirty word: The percentage of teens who identify as such is double that of the general population (13% vs. 6% of all adults). The proportion that identifies as Christian likewise drops from generation to generation. Three out of four Boomers are Protestant or Catholic Christians (75%), while just three in five 13- to 18-year-olds say they are some kind of Christian (59%).
This was particularly interesting…
Teens, along with young adults, are more likely than older Americans to say the problem of evil and suffering is a deal breaker for them.
…as was this:
Nearly half of teens, on par with Millennials, say “I need factual evidence to support my beliefs” (46%)—which helps to explain their uneasiness with the relationship between science and the Bible. Significantly fewer teens and young adults (28% and 25%) than Gen X and Boomers (36% and 45%) see the two as complementary.
The news isn’t all good, however:
I’d be happier about this if it wasn’t for mostly secular portions of generation Z being responsible for so many calls for censoring contrary opinions, notably at universities.
It would seem that a lot of them think that their sincere beliefs should not be questioned, even by speakers they could easily ignore.
Glen Davidson
So, once again: why is this good news?
Preliminary data suggests up to 65,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016. More than 202,600 people died from opioid overdoses between 2002 and 2015
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/02/07/rising-synthetic-opioid-use.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20180207Z1_dnl_v_07&et_cid=DM184689&et_rid=207487883
It’s good news for drug dealers and big pharma feeding people with opioids…
Once people come to their senses and realize that there is no God and the universe, life and all human endeavours have no ultimate purpose, they feel a great sense of relief, just as Richard Dawkins predicts…
They are so relieved and free that they can’t contain their joy and contentment…
The only problem is the maintenance of that great contentment and joy…
So, that’s where the illegal and legal drug dealers come in…
Everyone is happy… the illegal and legal drug dealers make billions of dollars… the lobbyists get their share as do the politicians and regulators…
The materialists are also happy because the more people are hooked on drugs, the less likely they are to care about any evidence for Darwinism or the origins of life…
Darwiosaurs keep repeating the same claims that the evolution is a fact and origins of life by sheer dumb luck are just as proven, and the propaganda mastered by Goebbels works… as it did for the Nazis…
“The lie repeated often enough becomes true and you may find yourself believing it…”
While the little problem with the human society spiralling down the drain is an inconvenient truth for the materialists, but there’s always the great majority that has to comply when the minority wants to rule it… In the end, it is for the greater good; the glorification of the greatest ideology that humanity has ever produced and the greatest scientist who ever lived; the liberator of humanity from superstition and religious slavery and nonsense Charles Darwin. He gave the atheists the best gift ever, as Dawkins confirmed:
“An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: ‘I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”
Isn’t it great?
Let us all eat and drink like there is no tomorrow because we all gonna die… There is no hope, no purpose, no nothing…
Let Darwin live forever!
Hallelujah!
I find that it’s much harder to teach philosophy when the kids don’t even believe in objective reality.
The irony is that whereas students used to find Nietzsche subversive because they come into school with a faith in objective reality and transcendent verities, nowadays they come to school already implicit Nietzscheans — so what’s really subversive is teaching them Plato!
I don’t know, I certainly don’t see students questioning of “democratic” and “egalitarian” values of the kind that Nietzsche questioned. Nor would they see themselves as operating according to their will to power in demanding that their morals trump all. Nietzsche would.
Sure, they might be Nietzschean in some ways, that is, as they were taught. But Nietzsche really was subversive, not preaching a sanctified morality, and despising the one herd with no shepherd.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Fair points there, to be sure. I was thinking of their radical perspectivism — everyone has his or her own perspective — and suspicion about objective truths in ethics or politics. For them, politics pretty much just is will to power. It’s hard for me to gauge how deep their attachment to equality or democracy runs. Ironically, they are also quite dogmatic about science; it’s all about “feelings” in matters of opinion, but at the same time, science involves “proof”.
Kantian Naturalist,
Agreed.
Glen Davidson
Science teaches about testable models. When you question how closely a Creationist model fits reality you’re going to find a problem.
It’s about how good models are at representing reality.
Alan Fox,
Yes, I know that perfectly well. I was only remarking how difficult it is for my students to see science in those terms.
How do those models fit into the models of fruit fly that has been experimentally tested and mutagenesis has been done in all imaginable ways for close to 100 years?
Corneel is very hopeful that one day he is going to get an experiment that the fruit fly, other then the one we know so well, can fly….
I’m not against hope…I’m just against unreasonable hope that somehow materialists generate based on… nothing…
Where they get enthusiasm? It is the mystery beyond science….
William:
Didn’t you already have this discussion with Rumraket? I suspect my answers will be similar to his.
It’s good news when people think for themselves, reject dogma, and try to align their beliefs with reality, in a rigorous way. Bad news when they don’t.
Take yourself as an example. You’ve said:
Your assessment is correct. They are poor books, not worth the readers’ time, and certainly not worth the effort you put into them. They’re full of goofy and unrealistic ideas — ideas that any sensible person would reject after just a tiny bit of careful thinking.
Those two embarrassing failures could have been avoided if you had cultivated and applied a modicum of critical thinking ability. You were stuck in a failed mindset for years because of your gullibility.
It’s very good news when we hear that kids want their beliefs to conform to the facts, and that they’re asking the appropriate questions (about the problem of evil and suffering, for example) instead of just accepting the dogmas that are being handed to them.
You keep asserting things are good. You don’t explain why any of that is good, even if we accept arguendo your list of characteristics that certainly have not been shown to be more prevalent in atheists than in the religious.
Again, you just assert it as good. Again: why is any of that good, even if we accept your characterizations of atheists arguendo?
Second, do you have any evidence that any of the characterizations you listed are more prevalent in atheists than the religious?
.
William,
Problems (and their solutions) exist in reality. Folks who are reality-based are better at dealing with them, in general, than the delusional. They are generally safer and less of a danger to themselves, their families, and their neighbors. It’s not a difficult concept, and it’s not a surprise.
It’s why we value education. It’s why we don’t attempt to induce continuous psychosis in all our citizens. It’s why we test the skills of airline pilots, rather than just handing them the keys to the 787. A pilot who understands how the airplane works in reality is less likely to get her passengers killed. A pilot who knows that he’s flying from Orlando to San Francisco, and not to Alpha Centauri, is more likely to deliver a planeload of surviving passengers.
William, you wasted decades believing “mind powers” crap like this. From your third book, Instant Enlightenment:
And:
While you were spouting nonsense like that, reality-based people were actually accomplishing things.
1. Do you have any scientific or statistical evidence that supports your contention that atheists are more “reality-based” in their thoughts and views than the religious?
2. Do you have any scientific or statistical evidence that shows that the religious are more prone to “delusional” thinking than the religious?
3. Do you have any scientific or statistical evidence that atheists are less of a danger to themselves, their family and their neighbors than the religious?
4. Do you have any scientific or statistical evidence that indicates that atheists less prone to psychosis than the religious?
5. Do you have any scientific or statistical evidence that atheists are better at succeeding in life – building things successfully, flying planes successfully, passing tests successfully, etc. – than the religious?
6. You make the claim that atheism is reality based. Could you direct me to the factual, scientific evidence that demonstrates the non-existence of god?
BTW, I assume by “reality-based” you mean people who have views they can back with some sort of scientific research or study, and I assume that you consider yourself one of those people, so I’m sure you will not have any trouble at all providing me with the fact-based scientific research that underpins the things you’ve said.
William,
You’re trying to project a lot of beliefs and claims onto me.
Why not just go by what I’ve written, instead?
You asked me why I regard the Barna results as good news, and I told you, in some detail.
Is there something specific I have written that you disagree with? If so, quote it and we can discuss it.
I don’t think I’ve projected anything on you, keiths, and as far as I can see, I’m responding directly to your statements and assertions in this thread. I’ve been asking you questions about the views you’ve expressed both in the OP and in the thread. You are, of course, free to point out where I’ve misunderstood something you’ve said, or where I’ve drawn an incorrect inference, or where I’ve assigned you a view you do not have.
Now, can you answer the questions I’ve posed to you that directly relate to assertions and implications you’ve made here? If those questions are somehow improperly formed with respect to your stated views here, can you tell me how so?
Otherwise, can you provide the evidence I’ve asked for?
Religion poisons the mind, and the evidence is right here at TSZ in Bill Cole, phoodoo, J-Tard, nonlin and of course, Byers. If you don’t know why, add yourself to the list
Well, I first tried to chase them up a tree but that didn’t work out, so I am afraid evolution has been falsified and the whole edifice will come tumbling down.
I guess that depends on what you mean by “poisons”. To be honest, I don’t see many atheists with less vitriol, condescension, or mean-spirited dialogue than the religious.
As far as expressing unsupported views, I don’t see how believing there is no god is more supportable than believing there is one, so I’m not sure how one can quantify exactly how one of those views is more in alignment with “reality” than the other.
Perhaps keiths – or someone else – will provide such evidence.
They say you get more flies with honey. Maybe you could put some honey somewhere high in the tree.
Alas:
https://xkcd.com/357/
Perhaps some atheist definitions would be helpful here
Good—What I desire
reality based—Corresponding to what I want to believe
poisons the mind—-makes people think differently than I do
religion——any belief system other than mine
science—–atheism
peace
Hmmm. Well, have you tried putting some vinegar up there?
These are better:
William:
Come on, William. Your comment was full of beliefs and claims that you were trying to project onto me, from your first question to your last:
William,
A more disciplined interlocutor would be able to respond to my position without distorting it or adding to it. As you know, you have difficulties with disciplined reading and thinking. Your emotions get the best of you and you see things that aren’t there.
Hence my request:
Requiring you to quote my actual words, rather than “paraphrasing” them, will cut down on the amount of embellishment you can do.
Meanwhile, we have a vivid example, taken from your own life, that we can evaluate:
Your estrangement from reality caused you to waste decades of your life, William.
I’d like to see some evidence for the claim that one’s belief or disbelief in God has anything at all to do with reasoning or evidence.
An atheist would be tempted to think that, if religious belief is declining, then people are becoming more rational. Likewise, a theist would be tempted to think that if religious belief is declining, then people are becoming less rational.
Both parties are relying on a suppressed premise denied by the other.
But I am more inclined to think that both are mistaken, and that neither religious belief nor the denial of it has nothing to do with reason or evidence at all. We believe, or not, due to emotional motivations and psychological needs.
KN,
It varies by person, of course, but you’ll find plenty of deconversion stories from folks like me who were happy in their faith until they realized that it didn’t make intellectual sense.
ETA: I see you’ve added a lot to your comment. I’ll respond below.
Gods are supposed to be invisible magical beings for which there’s no evidence and are often described as having absurd characteristics. So, well … hum …
Well, let’s see, not believing that there’s an absurd, invisible, magical being, compared to believing that such being exists? Oh my! I cannot make my mind about which one is more aligned with reality either! Such a hard conundrum!
Evidence for what? Ah! That not believing in the invisible absurd magical beings is more aligned with reality? Nah! I doubt anybody can provide evidence. It’s such a hard problem!
KN,
They’re not mutually exclusive.
My deconversion caused emotional havoc in my life. If I hadn’t been motivated — emotionally motivated — to seek the truth, then it wouldn’t have been worth the pain.
My emotional need for my beliefs to make sense outweighed my emotional desire to cling to my faith after it became intellectually untenable.
Is not believing in Superman more supportable than believing in Superman?
Glen Davidson
To quote the great prophet Hitchens (peace be upon him):
“How Religion Poisons Everything”
You stole the words right out of my mouth.
Do you think that somebody can provide some evidence?
Exactly. Not sure what KN meant by ‘God’ above, but if he’s referring to the religious versions, they’re simply too ridiculous for any sensible person to believe in. It’s not irrational to deny the existence of either Thor, Ganesha, or Jesus Christ.
fifthmonarchyman,
Sorry, I forgot to add you to the list
Entropy,
If you replace “invisible absurd magical beings” with “a creator” how does it look now.
It looks like you have a position to defend vs an argument you have discounted up front. Based on your characterization you will discount any contrary evidence to your position that creation is false.
Walto is arguing exactly the same way.
I quite agree that it’s not irrational to deny the existence of Thor, Ganesha, or Jesus Christ. Nor is it irrational to affirm the existence of any or all of them.
(To use a bit of philosophical jargon, I’m urging non-cognitivism about religion. If utterances that purport to talk about gods lack truth-values, then they cannot be false any more than they can be true.)
Another way of putting it would be that we’d actually have to do serious sociology of religion or serious anthropology in order to find out how people who pray to Ganesha think about him. Do they “believe in” him? Is “believing in” Ganesha really the right to describe the behaviors and prayers of devout Hindus? There are complicated questions of sociology, psychology, and anthropology that can’t be dismissed with some handwaving.
As very poor philosophy and still absurd.
I suspect, though, that if we explored what you mean by “creator” we’d get to an invisible absurd magical being anyway.
My position, currently, is that I don’t have to defend a position, that it’s those who believe in the absurd magical being who need to defend theirs. My position is that the rational position is to discount the absurd magical being up front. But I didn’t start there. I was indoctrinated into believing in the absurd magical being when I was a kid. Only much later I realized the absurdity. It took lots of steps, but I didn’t reject it up front. After all, well, I was a kid.
What evidence? Arguments based on faulty philosophy are not evidence. Your personal incredulity about natural processes are not evidence. Lack of knowledge about how something happened is not evidence either. Stories written centuries ago, showing vivid imaginations, all the elements of fantasy-based story-telling, are not evidence either. So what are you talking about?
I think the point is that it looks the same. Not to you, since you privilege your magical being, but just making up (or adopting someone else’s made up being) a “creator” is an entirely illegitimate epistemologic move.
Is it even possible for you to realize that, without decent evidence for your “creator,” you have no argument?
What evidence would that be?
Yes, and you never get it. A “creator” is not a default, nor an argument. You don’t even try to come up with evidence for design (something that, say, would be allowed judicially), you just assume your magical being and act like it’s the default.
Your false dilemma is the basic fallacy that you stand upon. If others were as uncaring about what proper evidence is as you are, you’d be in danger of being guilty until proven innocent under the law.
Glen Davidson
Just because you can state two things (or belief in them) as being of the same kind doesn’t mean they are. In doing so you are assuming your conclusion.
Keiths,
I asked you what you meant by “good” in the OP. You explained what you meant by “good”. I then asked you to provide evidence that demonstrated those kinds of “goods” were actually more prevalent in atheists than in the religious; apparently, you cannot do so. I’m fine with leaving it at that.
In pretending that they’re not of the same kind you’re assuming your conclusion.
Classic example of religion poisoning the mind: always remove detail, (retreat to first cause arguments) and pretend everything else will go unnoticed somehow.
No Billy, no. You believe in a transcendent personal God capable of pretty much anything: an invisible magical dude, indeed
You assumed that they are not of the same kind, making no argument that they weren’t. You got called on it, so accused me of doing what you did (I did, but I did it to point to the absurdity of your position).
And yes, we have every reason to suppose that unperceived beings that people wrote about, for which they have never produced decent evidence, are indeed of the same kind–fictional beings. The philosopher’s god is arguably somewhat different, but in the end it doesn’t meet the standards of evidence either (don’t go on about “necessary beings,” “necessity” in that sense never having been shown to have meaning beyond ourselves).
Glen Davidson
The concept of Superman is nothing like the concept of God.
Superman is exceedingly powerful but still finite: he cannot be present at all points in space-time, he needs to eat and sleep, he is vulnerable to Kryptonite and to magic, he can be injured and (briefly) killed. (In the comics they make it clear that the Kryptonian technology used to resurrect him can never be used again. They fudge on that in the “Justice League” movie.)
God is nothing at all like that: He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
Personally, I’d rather talk about Superman than about God, but since folks here want to talk about God, we might as well get clear on the relevant conceptual distinctions.
Yes, the stories are different.
The issue is that, as far as the evidence goes, they appear to be nothing but stories.
Glen Davidson