Why Atheism will Replace Religion!

Caspian · #10 (**permalink**) 30-Nov-2010, 17:16 PM

Atheism is growing in developed countries (Thats the main point of the article). Even in America as someone has suggested before, Atheists (as a minority group) out number African Americans now.

Islam is also growing, it is the fastest growing mainstream religion (But this has alot to do with the large families of Muslims, as the article mentioned, Atheists tend to limit the number of their childern, their main [and almost only] mode of growth is by "conversion" ie; religious people becoming atheist. Where as muslims are simpy out-sexing everyone and imigrating into european countries [although i wont deny there are alot of muslim converts as well]).
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/atheism/30701-why-atheism-will-replace-religion.html

Wicca is the fastest growing belief system (mainstream or not) (I heard this somewhere, and I'm not sure as to its legitimacy, but one could only assume if u begin with 1 member and had 2 members the next year, uve achieved a doubling of ur religion in the span of a year :P thats very good progress).
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=30701

Buddhism, as far as i know, is also growing

All forms of Christianity are in decline except evangelicalism in the states. There is a tendancy to head towards the extremes of religion.

findingmyway · #11 (**permalink**) 30-Nov-2010, 17:31 PM

Why can't religious people and atheists live alongside each other? Atheists are as bad as Christian missionaries at trying to convert people and ridiculing others who don't share their lack of faith!

Caspian · #12 (**permalink**) 30-Nov-2010, 17:43 PM

Quote:

Why can't religious people and atheists live alongside each other? Atheists are as bad as Christian missionaries at trying to convert people and ridiculing others who don't share their lack of faith!

Actually, you would find that "MOST" atheists did not become atheists as a result of "direct" conversion (ie. from reading the works of atheists). Instead, most Atheists turned toward atheism through education or introspection into the religions they were born into and by examining all religions in general. That was the case with me, I didn't even hear about richard dawkins, or christopher hitchens and the like until I went to university. But I was already firmly an atheist by that time, an atheist of my own accord.

Having said that, are richard dawkins, christopher hitchens and sam harris as bad as religious missionaries? I would say not... in some cases they can be worse (there are alot of good religious missionaries out their :P for what its worth the Dalai Llama has done a great job promoting buddhism without resorting to ridiculing other faiths). But in most ways, especially historically, these atheists are far better then religious missionaries (after-all, they certainly didnt spread small pox to the first nations—they defintly didnt scalp the sikhs—and they certainly never gassed the jews).

But frankly, if you religious people can barely (and i would say rarely) learn to live with one another, why would u even suggest that atheists come join ur "party." Lol, no, where perfectly content watching from the sidelines and occasionally commenting on the ridiculous nature of it all.

Why cant religious people live together? Even people of the same faith cant live together due to sub-sections within the faith. Atheism, in my opinion, present the only solution to gettin different people to live together peacefully—if you happen to be religious in a predominately atheist community, u get laughed at (worst case scenerio). If you happen to be atheist in a predominately religious society, you get killed (worst case scenerio) or atleast thrown in jail or sometin of the like.

spnadmin · #13 (**permalink**) 30-Nov-2010, 20:43 PM

Quote:

f you happen to be atheist in a predominately religious society, you get killed (worst case scenerio) or atleast thrown in jail or sometin of the like.

Caspian ji - When is the last time this happened in the US or Canada?

kds1980 · #14 (**permalink**) 30-Nov-2010, 20:56 PM

Quote:

if you happen to be religious in a predominately atheist community, u get laughed at (worst case scenerio). If you happen to be atheist in a predominately religious society, you get killed (worst case scenerio) or atleast thrown in jail or sometin of the like.

You Atheists Live in your Imaginery world.My brothers best friend is from Brahmin family and an Atheist.He eats lot of meat including beef if he gets chance.His family know about it
They are not comfortable with it and keep some material in his room so the negative energy goes out of it.This is the only suffering he is getting of being in Religious hindu family O/W He is not even facing a single problem and you are talking about Death or Jail LOL

Caspian · #15 (**permalink**) 30-Nov-2010, 20:56 PM

Quote:

Caspian ji - When is the last time this happened in the US or Canada?

I wouldnt say Canada is a predominately religious society even though ~80% of canadians claim to be religious (77 christian and 2 percent islam). There is an inherent difference between Canada and say Iran. Or even Canada and America.

"With Christianity having once been central and integral to Canadian culture and daily life, it has been recently suggested that Canada has come to enter a

Postchristianity

or

Secularity

state, where practice of the religion has "moved to the margins of public life",[2][3] and irreligion is on the rise." - Wiki

Religion_in_Canada

As for America.

Certain regions of America that are "notoriosly religious" *cough*Texas*cough* actively practice intolerance against Atheists that is pretty much illeagal—and they do it through "legal" means. For example, in texas, it is illeagal for an atheist to hold public office (in my opinion that can be catogorized under "something of the like"). Atheists can be denied basic freedoms, rights, etc—there is a case of an entire community and highschool who essentially forced an atheist basketball player to quit the team.

George Bush Sr himself has said: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

And even then, I dont consider America to be religious in the same sense as Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, and other Sub-Sahharan countries that i was initially alluding to when i said "predominately religious" if you want i can rephrase and say.

"if you happen to be religious in a Mostly ~100% atheist community, u get laughed at (worst case scenerio). If you happen to be atheist in a Mostly~100% religious society, you get killed (worst case scenerio) or atleast thrown in jail or sometin of the like."

(But i still think the word "predominately" works well enough. The simple fact is, atheists are far more tolerant then religious people. and being killed was just the "worst case scenerio" the frequent "middle" cases that occur throughout america are still far more harsh then the "laughing" one would recieve in a atheist community. thats all i was trying to say. Im not saying an atheist will 100 percent of the time be put to death in a county like america. But an atheist undergoes far more intolerance in a country like america then a religious person would in a atheistic country)

spnadmin · #16 (**permalink**) 30-Nov-2010, 21:18 PM

Caspian ji

So you are thinking and writing in metaphors perhaps. It just seems to me that atheists for the most part suffer less than members of religious minorities in religious states, or in communist states which btw are also atheist states. Most of the suffering of atheists in this day and age appears to be mental suffering more than anything else.

findingmyway · #17 (**permalink**) 30-Nov-2010, 21:38 PM

Here we go again! Lets judge all religious people in one big lump along with fanatical states like Iran. Well in that case I will judge all non-religious people according to the very scary English defence league and Nazi movements. According to Mein Kampf Hitler was not into religion. So many attacks on Sikh taxi drivers and others around the world as they stand out as being religious are by people who do not believe in religion. The media, esp here in Britain has lost respect for people who want to follow religion and hound us constantly-it is no longer cool and acceptable to come across in public as religious! All religions are lumped together as if they are the same-THEY ARE NOT! What happened to judging people as individuals. Caspian, you talk about the leading writers of atheism. In that case, did Guru Nanak Dev Ji, Jesus, Muhammed or Buddha ever propose violence themselves? It is the followers that twist the ideologies just like the media does now.

Sinister · #18 (**permalink**) 01-Dec-2010, 01:18 AM

A Crtique:

Irrelevant study,

Atheism or religion or any deep personal belief/preferences regarding metaphysical questions cannot be reduced to expressions of numbers which is the backbone of demographic studies. Why? because studying demographic trends that are not tangible always leads to either inconclusive or untrue results or untrue validation of hypotheses (its also kinda dickish to be treating groups as if it were a unit independent of individuals and yourself as an objective observer of a 'trend'... denoting yourself an entity capable of grouping them to represent a collective consciousness that you yourself, 'the intellectual', have constructed), it leads to social engineering and it leads to unsound extrapolations of the information that is itself far-fetched. I wish I could provide you with examples of how poorly these surveys are actually conducted and then interpreted, but the above article is proof enough.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=30701

What's being done in this article? You have a structuralist that represents undefined ideal types to some subject and then asks them to relate themselves to one. Creating culture/trend where there is none, were true choice is non existent or at best limited to empty words.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=30701
Then he will try to pass it off as a cultural trend... at this point this persons intellectual laziness has peaked.

The entire study is reliant on the fact that people are honest with themselves, are telling the truth to you, and that the ideal type actually exists the same in everyones consciousnes...but anyone who has spent half a day in a clinical setting with a psychiatrist or psychologist will tell you that never happens. When the majority of people do not know the vague definitions of what you are asking them...how can you get reliable results without meaningful conversations?

The only way to effectively study personal beliefs should be rooted in something like the Hegelian dialectic...always giving precedence to the social interaction itself in explaining the outcome of belief or non-belief. Qualitative research above quantitative will not only allow people to study what people believe but more importantly why they believe what they believe. (percentages and numbers cannot express what in actuality is; emotion driven preferences on temporarily chosing philosophies to serve oneself insight on their surroundings)