There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler’s attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent. A separate Pew Forum poll echoed the ARIS finding, reporting that the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans. (Seventy-five percent of unaffiliated voters chose Barack Obama, a Christian.) Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)
While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. […] As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America’s unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right’s notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.
#118 little dog bobbo
>>What a low opinion you have of people
Did you even read Misanthropic Scott’s reference to murder, rape, incest, genocide… etc?
I realize in your world this is normal human activity to be protected by activist judges, corrupt courts and Obama-worshiping sheeple, but believe it or not there are still many who find this type of conduct the mark of a depraved society.
#113–contempt for simple distinctions==Yes, I read Scotts posts and yours.
You see little contempie==the bible recommends and approves those things quite often in different circumstances.
You are right, its horrible stuff and every society fights to correct/stop those things. Meanwhile the god you worship commands people to do that when sufficient folks need a lesson.
repugnant belief system there. Good thing you aren’t a christian so you don’t have to believe all that stuff.
#104
You need to go back to school as you are incorrectly claiming an argument from silence. The argument from silence is a fallacy when there is no other evidence or pattern to consider. However, we have plenty of other evidence in many books of the Bible that are quite clear and dire in their punishment. Leviticus has numerous punishments of death for fairly innocuous crimes. Thus, far from being silent we are able to show a pattern in the clarity and severity of punishments that is lacking in this example for reasons that must be intentional. Would you like to try again?
> NOTHING in scripture states
> a child less than a month old is not human.
There are however a handful of passages that assign less value to them than other humans and not in relation to work value. If the value fetuses were cherished so high as the fanatically religious would have us believe, one would think they could find many (or at least one) clear and explicit passage indicating specifically and exactly that. They cannot. Instead, they must twist interpretations of a variety of passages to arrive at the dodgy conclusion that they do.
From an anthropological perspective, at the time there was a high infant mortality rate. It was not clear that a child under about a year of age was going to survive to their second year. Thus, if a fetus became a problem or was prematurely aborted, it would make sense that their efforts would tend towards protecting the mother to have another child (live to fight another day). I would bet that most people of that era would state that the health of the mother was more important than the health of the fetus. Perhaps Misanthropic Scott can provide us with more insight.
#105
There are politicians that ran for election (not re-election) while stating during their campaign that they were openly gay? Wow! I knew the day was coming, I just did not realize it was already here. Pray tell, who are these politicians?
With respect to atheists, I did know that there was one atheist that stated as such after they were in office. I’m waiting for the day when someone runs for Congress or the Presidency while stating during their campaign that they are atheist. I suspect were are many years from that event.
Missed my connection in Phoenix and was wandering around one of the stores where they sell books and stumbled on this title, “What Americans really believe” in the business section. It’s the research summary of the most recent studies on American religion. There was a comprehensive study done in the sixties through an organization called American Piety that is the baseline for all the religious trends since but no studies have been done until 2005. All of the ‘information’ like this article is pure speculation and conjecture. Really, find a old broken down church and call the movement failing?
The current studies were created at Baylor University and conducted by Gallup and there have been two studies so far; 2005 and 2007. Here’s the most interesting statistic that relates to this story; people who say that they attend church weekly is exactly the same as in 1968. In the summary book they talk about all the authors that have been making statements like the ones found here (“Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population”), including christian authors, they are wrong. The actual numbers don’t support this assertion.
I’ll leave it up to readers to decide weather you trust the studies or not. When you find that a christian church is declining you need to ask where they’re going and not assume they’re becoming unchurched.
#114 bobbo
>>the god you worship commands people to do that when sufficient folks need a lesson.
If blame is what you desire then the real problems of the world spring from self-serving world leaders and politicians seeking to play god by punishing the folks they think need a lesson.
It just stands to reason that you can’t blame every result on God and forget Satan is also influencing events.
#72, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
You didn’t answer my question…I might think you are the greatest…but then again, what do I know?
You have the unmitigated audacity, the brazen gall, the effen garbage intellect to request someone else answer one of your twisted questions when you have repeatedly been requested to simply post where you got your information that Obama sold drugs.
You did ask a good question; what do you know?
#103 misanthropic Scott,
From your post you imply that either you’re an atheist or you have sympathy for the atheist movement, right? No, don’t answer that I just want expose my own assumption so you can know where the rest of my comment comes from.
The reason that I think that it could be the latter is that an atheist wouldn’t care what is on a coin, knowing that words about God are meaningless, right? An atheist doesn’t care what anyone says about religion knowing that it’s worthless, right?
However, your other points are quite valid (except for one). You’re right, religion isn’t really declining. Creationism is a political term that is in disagreement even within Christianity and personally, I object to how it’s taught. I think most Christians are only interested in the ‘idea’ of creationism and not the accuracy of the teaching.
You’re right about Obama contributing; and museums about creationism; but I fail to see how an atheist cares about those either.
The point that I disagree with is about atheists being hated. By who? Obama? Christians? Christian teaching? I think it’s interesting that when a Christian makes a mistake opponents are quick to point out ‘hey, aren’t you supposed to love your neighbor?’ People outside Christianity know what Christians teach. But it’s all forgotten when you want to make a point about how dangerous Christianity is. So, which is it, are Christians taught to love atheists or hate them?
#117: “When you find that a christian church is declining you need to ask where they’re going and not assume they’re becoming unchurched.”
Maybe they’re giving up religion for Lent.
#122, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
C’mon Queenie, are you suggesting women are second class citizens? Are you really proposing that your mother is worth less than your father or that she might even be property, the same as a fetus?
Hey, I am really seeing that you bear false witness against Obama. If you would lie about your President, why can’t we expect you to also lie about the bible?
#109 – Dallas,
#106 Misanthropic – I like your writings and share many of your views but you should know better why people eventually resort to quoting scripture as a final defense of their argument.
Unfortunately, much as I don’t understand how a mind can believe such self-contradictory failed logic in the first place, I also don’t understand the quoting of scripture as evidence of anything other than a weak mind.
#104 – Alfred1,
Here’s a question for you. Given that abortion was performed for 1550 years prior to the supposed time of Christ and was commonly practiced both surgically and via abortifacients at the time of Christ, why exactly did he say so much about so many things including sex and murder but never once mention abortion by name?
Could it be that Christ was fine with abortion at all stages of pregnancy?
That word “ensouled” is my new favorite.
People have only begun to think for themselves without need of a deity. Mankind has become aware of his own psychology. It’s what’s been pulling the strings all along. Surprise!
The deity turns out to be a projected sock-puppet from mankind’s ancient DNA. The word “soul” is doomed to the trashheap of history. Your “soul” will not outlive you.
We are mortal beings & that’s good enough. Kiss your deity goodbye & good riddance.
#125, Quaalude Queenie,
C’mon Queenie, you can do better than that. You bore false witness against the President. You have been caught in an out and out lie.
If you would lie about something posted with the sole intention of besmirching someone, how can anyone have any faith in what you write as the correct interpretation of the bible. You blatantly lied already, how can anyone not believe you didn’t lie now.
Just as Thomas so eloquently pointed out, your bible treats babies as worth less than a person. Women are worth less than a man. Slavery is accepted and most people in the bible kept slaves. The Kings you worship were all bigamists.
Or will you condemn that behavior as normal and suggest we all engage in it.
Religion is the downfall of society. Plain and simple. If you want to guess at wherever , whoever, whatever we come from, then you are not fit to make any important decisions such as medical research and lawmaking.
#130, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
I didn’t lie…Obama sold drugs…
Wrong. You claimed he sold drugs, now prove it. There is no evidence, even “likely” evidence. It is all just your wish in order to denigrate the man. Now you’ve been caught in a lie.
For a couple of weeks you’ve been avoiding the answer because, in my opinion, you knew it was a lie. You would post stupid comments about Obama being married. Then you claim I love Obama and apologize for him. But you still can’t back up your claim.
I do not know for a fact if he did or didn’t. I wasn’t observing him entire life. But I will give him the benefit of a doubt. Why? Because my MORALS require I treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty. A very similar concept to what some Christians believe.
Other so called Christians don’t hold the same morals as “Do unto others as you have them do unto you”.
#132, Mr. Fusion – why are you bothering to demand that Alfred1 uses logic and actual evidence? It’s very clear he is capable of using neither, which is why he’s a perfect lemming for blind religious belief, and explains his irrational belligerence.
#122
> An argument from silence is NEVER sound.
You are incorrectly claiming an argument from silence fallacy. An argument fits into this category only if there is no pattern of expected behavior. Take the following statement for example, “A swimmer picked trinkets off the bottom of the pool.” I said nothing in that statement about swimmer taking a breath before they submerged however we can infer that this action occurred.
In deciphering historical texts, what is not written can say volumes about the importance, or lack thereof, of actions and deeds. Bunny rabbits existed at the time the authors of the OT wrote their material and yet there is nothing in the Bible about them. Barring evidence to the contrary and based on other writings from alternate sources, we can infer that the people did not consider them of sufficient importance to include in their writings.
The Old Testament on numerous occassions meets out dire punishments for many infractions and it is quite explicit about those punishments and the crimes for which they are given. Yet they are strangely silent on abortion. Strange, don’t you think, given how explicit they are with everything else and how important you claim fetuses to be that they say nothing about it nor layout any specific and dire punishment?
You do realize that the quotes from Exodus you are providing actually prove my point do you not? Continuing to post that passage, even with you own personal injections, illustrates a degree of insanity if you are hoping that the meaning of those passages will somehow change with each repost. The passage clearly refers the consequences of ignoring the judgment as a result of hurting a pregnant woman, not the act itself.
Josephus was not an apostle nor an author of the Bible (as far as we know). Therefore, citing a third person’s interpretation of another person’s writings is entirely irrelevant. Given that we are tossing argument fallacy barbs, this would qualify as a poor appeal to authority.
RE: Barnabas 19:5
This is the one and only statement I have seen in any Christian texts that says anything explicitly about abortion. The problem is that it is not part of the Bible. It should be noted that the Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the Apostle Barnabas but was written by someone sometime after Jesus (assuming he existed) had died. So again we are reading what someone thinks about another person’s writing. Regardless, it is not part of the Bible and therefore not part of the “official” word of your deity (how man can make such a determination is another fascinating question but another time…) and it contradicts what is in the official Bible. If you are going to include the apocrypha as a basis for your arguments you open yourself to a world of new problems and contradictions.
I note with great irony that this document states that you should hate all hypocrisy. Furthermore, it states that you shouldn’t corrupt boys. Given the track record of Christian priests, I suppose we now know why it did not get into the official Bible.
#134 – Thomas,
Excellent and sound logic. Let me know if it ever convinces anyone. I’ve been trying for years, though I doubt I expressed it as well as your post just did.
The real problem is that the whole hypothesis of a creator fails from the start. Given that the simple logic failure of a creator has not swayed anyone, I can’t really imagine what would.
Why is it that only assorted non-theists are willing to even ask where such a creator might have come from?
Why is it that only assorted non-theists can see that if one assumes that cause and effect holds true in all cases, then a god creator and a god creator creator and a god creator creator creator etcetera ad infinitum would all be required?
Why is it that those who believe that cause and effect holds true are still willing to turn on their computers to blog despite the fact that the semiconductors necessary for those same computers use quantum mechanics, which flatly denies cause and effect at the most basic level?
Why is it that those who believe most strongly refuse to ask the questions that have the potential to genuinely bring them closer to an understanding of the god they claim exists?
Would not one who believed in such a creature want to know where said creature came from in order to gain a greater understanding of the mind of the creator?
I think I will never understand this simple and basic logic failure on the part of the vast majority of humanity.
Alfred1,
Thanks for thinking I was hilarious!
The fourfold growth of Atheism from from 1990 could be from several sources. For example, a couple million immigrants from the Former Soviet union could explain most of it.
As for the “decline” of Christianity, that could also be for lots of reasons other than disillusionment.
America just isn’t monolithically Christian like it used to be. People of other religions are moving-in and people who attended church for social reasons don’t feel the need anymore.
Even though I’m a devout Christian, myself, I’m totally OK with that.
In my observation, the large majority of people who leave the church don’t quite believing in God or lose their sense of spiritual reality — they just express it another way. I’m fine with that, too.
My own church (liberal Episcopalian) is absolutely full of people who have rejected some other church expression (usually conservative) but found that unacceptable too.
And they are amazingly enthusiastic about a church that takes the bible very seriously but don’t beat people over the head with it.
#136
I am well aware of the argument from silence. I am also aware that you are incorrectly applying it. I’m not arguing from nothing as there exists extensive patterns of writing set forth in the rest of the Bible and all other period texts. Historical analysis is not black-and-white as you might wish; rather it is based on reasonable, but guarded, assumptions given the evidence we have.
Let me put it this way, one could easily argue the opposite of any premise in the Bible as the rantings of a handful of authors and thus failing to be indicative of the general populace because we have heard nothing from them (or even most of them). After all, it might be the case that most Jewish people of the time thought eating pork was fine and generally took two days off instead of one. We will “never” know as those people never wrote about it.
Of course this argument is silly just as arguing that there is no pattern of importance in the writings of the Bible is silly. We must presume that what is written and mentioned often are the most important themes as felt by the authors and conversely what is not written is of lesser importance. If abortion equated to murder we’d have more than one dodgy passage that indicates more about compensation for property than it does for taking a life.
Thus, a more accurate, revised version of your analogy would be something like evaluating John Adams based on his writings and those about him. Adam’s never says anything about purple leprechauns in any of his speeches, any of his memoirs, or any his official documents nor does anyone else when they are talking about the President. We can thus make a reasonable assumption that purple leprechauns were not as important to him as say France. It is still remotely possible of course that he hid his love for purple leprechauns but until we get evidence to the contrary and from an historical perspective, we can make a safe conclusion that purple leprechauns were not important to him.
#135
Thank you. Indeed the first argument set forth by an atheist should be to define what exactly is meant by “god”. How do we know it when we see it? How do we know what it is not? That argument alone typically ends most discussions with some variant of “you have to take it by faith” (or translated: “I have NFC”).
#143 – Alfred1,
Its not a lie, its my conclusion as to what is likely, based upon the facts of the phenomena.
I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to you. Nor does the biblical admonition against bearing false witness. You are one fucked up induhvidual.
It is much more likely Obama sold drugs at least once, just as did every other drug user on the planet, or distributed them free for other reasons (which really is a sale, but not for money), just as every drug user does, than not.
I’m sorry. Do you seem to think of this as proof of anything??!!? More likely? You stated it as fact. Further, you obviously know nothing about drug use or channels of distribution of any product. There are always more end users than distributors.
I shop in grocery stores, but have never worked in one. I buy clothing but have never sold it. I drive a car, but have never sold them. I stay in motels on travel, but have never run one.
Are you an idiot? Or, do you merely play one on TV?
The burden of proof really isn’t on me.
Ah … your clearest statement of your lack of understanding of the world yet. You made an accusation. The burden of proof is most definitely on you.
I claim you are a murderer. The burden of proof really isn’t on me.
I claim also claim you are a bald faced liar. The proof is on this thread.
When Bill Shaheen(black) alleged Obama sold drugs…it rang true to me.
Not only are you a liar and a bearer of false witness, you are a total racist bastard as well. I see you have learned the love of Christ very well from the bible.
You are also excellent evidence of the problems inherent in the judeo-christian-islamic religion (deliberately singular) and are an excellent example of exactly why I am not only an atheist but an antitheist as well.
Your bible has taught you hatred and fear of others. It has made you a xenophobe in the extreme. You would do well to pick up another book or two once in a while.
Oops. Forgot to close a bold tag. Only the first two bold sentences were intended to be that way.
#141
You really need to take a class or five on archeology (and logic). We are not making an evaluation in a vacuum based on a single passage. We have a mountain of additional evidence to consider which you seem determined to ignore.
We can, given the available evidence, make a provisional conclusion that John Adam cared little if anything for purple leprechauns. If any contrary material were found, we would change our conclusion. The more material we find that is silent on the subject, the proportionally stronger our conclusion becomes. Similarly, we can conclude that had abortion been considered the equivalent of murder, a crime that is documented numerous times along with a host of other crimes meriting punishment by death, it would have been documented in more than a single dodgy passage out of the volumes of text that were written at the time. The more material we find that says nothing on the subject, the stronger our conclusion. This is sound, common historical analysis. This is not a criminal court where the evidence must be beyond all reasonable doubt. Historians make conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence because the evidence they generally have is minimal.
By your logic, we could never conclude anything about history since after all, we don’t know what we don’t know and we only have a limited number of authors saying anything at all. Hey, the Jews could have enjoyed screwing camels with palm trees since they never say anything about it. We “can’t” conclude they did or did not. This type of thinking is ridiculous. We can use the evidence we have to make a reasoned conclusion and while it is possible that abortion was considered so heinous that the never wrote about it, the evidence, including the lack of evidence to support the claim, suggests otherwise.
Again, the original premise is still quite valid: the Bible, if anything, says nothing on abortion or at best considers child younger than a certain age to be inconsequential or property.
#141, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
C’mon Queenie, by your own quote you just elevated a fetus to something of property.
… the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.
The same as if the men fighting had of broken a table, a door, or a bed. If they can’t agree on damages then a Judge will decide tha value.
NOWHERE does that passage even imply that a fetus is anything more than a chattel. Worthy of future value, yes, a life worth the charge of murder, NO.
And you are still a liar. On two levels now.
#143, Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
It is much more likely Obama sold drugs at least once, just as did every other drug user on the planet, or distributed them free for other reasons (which really is a sale, but not for money), just as every drug user does, than not.
The burden of proof really isn’t on me.
Wrong. You have no evidence that Obama ever sold drugs. You ASSUME he did because he is half black. You ASSUME he did because he also experimented with them. You ASSUME he did because some third party stated that someone Obama knew might have sold drugs.
No proof. No evidence. Only denigration. And the burden of proof IS on you. You claimed it.
Now I watch you nitpick arguments from others such as your “argument from silence”. Yet the same level of veracity you require from others you deny of yourself.
Please, Queenie, learn the difference between an opinion and a fact.
Alphie, the Quaalude Queen,
I googled “argument from silence”.
Interestingly, the wikipedia page that came up gave a textbook example in which it is perfectly valid to use the argument from silence.
More interestingly, it asserted that a valid use is exactly as Thomas has been using it.
Here it is for your education.
http://tinyurl.com/cmvvfq
What a lying sack of shit: “Its not a lie, its my conclusion as to what is likely, based upon the facts of the phenomena.”
Not a lie at the time uttered==it became a lie after a week for demands of evidence and a final decision to bluff it out as if it weren’t a pathetic failure to be honest with ones self.
Truly PATHETIC. Just admit simple overstatements made in a rush and separate fact from fiction. Course, Alfie ain’t great at that particular distinction.
Heh, heh. “I believe – – – – – -“
#151 – Alfie,
I missed something here. You referred someone to a site which listed something you called evidence?
Please provide at least that link. I don’t see it on this thread.