Slashdot Mirror
Religious Affiliation Shrinking In the US
gollum123 notes new U.S. demographic data from the Pew Research Center which show that the percentage of Americans declaring affiliation with a particular religion has declined sharply since 2007. Americans identifying as Christian dropped from 78.4% in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Those describing themselves as atheist, agnostic, or simple having no affiliation took up most of the slack, rising from 16.1% to 22.8%. Members of non-Christian faiths collectively rose from 4.7% to 5.9%. Despite the overall decline, the demographics within the Christian group are getting much more racially and ethnically diverse. The willingness of respondents to marry outside their religious affiliation is also on the rise. The median age of unaffiliated adults is dropping, while the median ages of mainline Protestants and Catholics are rising. The study estimates that 85% of adults age 70 and over are Christian, while only 56% of adults ages 18-24 are Christian. They also say that each individual generation has shown a slight decrease in religious affiliation compared to their statistics in 2007.
I'd say it is because of Christian inconsistencies. On the one hand they state that God's love is unconditional
No. Christians claim that there's a very specific condition. John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
There may be some debate around what what it means to believe in Jesus, but if someone claims to be a Christian but doesn't believe that, they're not really a Christian.
on the other they say if you don't love God and follow His laws you will go to hell. There is no logic to religion.
Again, no. It is not possible for a person to fully love God and follow his laws perfectly, which is what made atonement through Christ's death necessary. Hell is separation from God. As noted above, God gave a very specific way for people to spend eternity with him. If you don't want to believe in Jesus Christ, then you spend eternity separated from him. That seems perfectly logical to me.
What you seem to be espousing is the secular Hollywood/pop-culture view of Christianity, which is almost always an inaccurate portrayal of it.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I'm fairly certain humanity would find plenty of reasons to wage war if religions were not around to blame it on.
Religions were created as the first rudimentary forms of government or control over other people, and are still remarkably effective at that task. They only require an ongoing group of leaders to ensure obligations are continually felt by the members, as it's difficult to create a new religion quickly with a large enough number of committed adherents to wage an effective war.
The entire process is well understood and practiced worldwide.
John
Watch out, the ATHEISTS are coming! They're coming for your children, to indoctrinate them with logic and critical thinking skills. Younger ones WILL BE EATEN!
Thoughtful people would, of course, never use a phrase like 'religious wacko', idiot, etc, so, alas, this thread will see little deep inquiry.
It must be very convenient to be able to ignore the opinions of people who disagree with you just because they used a word you don't like.
If there are a few of you, here, you may be interested in this: lack of religion in the us is strongly correlated with poverty; economic mobility (escaping poverty, "climbing the economic ladder", achieving the "American dream") strongly correlates with religious affiliation.
I'm curious, do you have any source for your strong correlation? My own anecdotal evidence is that the poorest areas such as slums and ghettos usually have very high religious participation, while wealthy, highly educated people are more likely to be nonreligious. And everybody knows that the prison population is overwhelmingly religious.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Here are Gallup's historical trends up to 2013. Some things to note:
1. The % of those who say religion is a "very important" part of their life has remained roughly constant.
2. The % of those who says religion is only a "fairly important" part of their life has showed more consistent decline.
3. The % of "nones" seems to be mostly cannibalizing from the "fairly important" group, who are essentially nominal believers. The % of people who are "devout" seems to be more-or-less holding its own.
4. The % of people who claim to have attended church or synagogue in the last 7 days has remained roughly constant.
5. The % of people who self-identify as "evangelical or born-again Christians" has remained roughly constant (except for an elevated plateau from 1998 to 2002).
6. The % who self-identify as "evangelical or born-again" is actually higher (40%) in 2013 than it was in 1992 (36%).
So it seems that you don't have any problem with treating some groups of people as second class citizens, you just want to change which groups those are.
That was a quote from the poster before my poster. I'm disagreeing with his position.
Okay, that makes much more sense. Sorry for the mistake. You know they have quote tags you can use which really helps to clear these things up, especially if the post you are quoting is below a reader's score threshold. It's just <quote>.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Holy Heck, as a Non-American I thought your claim that there are states that ban atheists from being elected was probably an exaggeration or simply an interpretation of how it is hard in many places to be elected if one is a self-declared atheist. Hit a google search and figured i'd put this in there in case others were thinking like I was but don't bother to follow up.
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
from here and the wiki page they probably got it from.
If i had more time i'd look to see if there are cases of anyone actually being denied in the recent past or unseated after the fact but the fact that these provisions even exist to begin with is pretty awful.
Ice Cream has no bones.
your post is a little tl;dr for me, so forgive me if I'm focusing on the wrong details here.
But:
"scientism claims that life after death is impossible"
Science makes no such claims. "Science" would say that there's no credible evidence of life after death therefore it probably doesn't exist. Should credible evidence arise, "science" will re-evaluate.
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
Religious wackos delegate their ethical decision making to some scripture that cannot be questioned or examined critically.
Have gnu, will travel.
But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that it is the only tool we have for gathering knowledge. It can't answer every question, and that's okay.
Yes, it is the only tool. Other tools can provide answers, but not knowledge. Knowledge can be used to make predictions, and predictions are testable, and therefore fall in the realm of science. If your answers can't be used to make predictions, they are not useful, and they might as well not exist.