Growth in secular attitudes leaves Americans room for belief in God
October 31, 2009(PhysOrg.com) -- The nature of the American religious experience is changing as a rising number of people report having no formal religious affiliation, even though the number of Americans who say they pray is increasing, according to a new survey from the University of Chicago.
Those twin trends suggest a growing number of people are “spiritual but not religious,” the study author said. The report, “Religious Change Around the World,” found that in addition to an increased number of people who pray, a growing number believe in the afterlife. When asked how they view God, the most common responses were the traditional images of father and judge.
Sociologists of religion say the rise in people who are spiritual but religiously uncommitted is prompting churches to repackage their services into more contemporary offerings with fresh, livelier music and less of the usual liturgies.
“Americans’ attitudes toward religion are growing more complex,” said study author Tom W. Smith, Director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. “While fewer people identify with a particular religion, belief in God remains high.
“When asked simply about belief in God, most people include a range of God images, from a personal God to believing in a ‘higher power’ or a ‘spirit or life force,’” he said. People who don’t believe in a personal God but in a higher power of some kind rose from 5 percent in 1964 to 9 to 10 percent in recent surveys, the study found.
The report is the latest product of the General Social Survey, the nation’s longest, most scientifically reliable source of information on American attitudes and behaviors. Supported by the National Science Foundation, the survey is widely used by social scientists for their research.
In the United States, belief in God has ebbed over time from about 99 percent in the 1950s to about 92 percent at present. Certitude about God also has diminished, but the vast majority of Americans still express a strong and close connection to God.
“People’s images of God are diverse, but they lean toward the traditional,” Smith said. The GSS has asked people for their images of God since 1984, and about half of the people have consistently referred to God as “father,” while others used terms like “master” or “judge” to describe their idea of God. The number reporting God as “mother” has stayed at about 3 percent.
Although belief in God remains strong, the survey found that 22 percent of people said they had never attended a religious service, compared with 9 percent in 1972. The trends toward reduced church attendance began in the mid-1980s, and by the mid-1990s, fewer people reported identifying with a particular religion. In the most recent survey, 16 percent of people reported “none” when asked about their religious preference, a figure that stood at 5 to 8 percent in surveys taken between 1972 and 1991.
Daily prayer rose from 52 percent in the 1989-90 survey to 59 percent in the most recent survey. Belief in the afterlife also went up modestly, from 69 percent in 1973 to 73 percent in most recent surveys.
“The number of people identifying as ‘spiritual, but not religious’ has been growing perhaps for three decades. This of course has implications for traditional religious institutions, which may feel pressure to revitalize or altogether repackage their spiritual offerings,” said Omar M. McRoberts, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago and Co-Chair of the Working Group on Spirituality, Political Engagement and Public Life at the Social Science Research Council.
“We should not assume, however, that ‘spiritual’ people are individualists who avoid participation in general,” McRoberts said. “Rather we should look carefully for new forms of spiritual sociability emerging in the religious field, and new ways of expressing spiritual values in the public realm.”
The study found religious participation to be strongest among older people. Future research will determine whether today’s younger generation becomes more religious as it ages or retains its secular orientation, Smith said.
Religious participation elsewhere in the world also represents a complex picture, an examination of worldwide surveys shows. In Muslim countries, belief in God remains strong, while in secular nations in Western Europe it has been declining.
Although Communists discouraged religious belief in Eastern Europe, belief in God has rebounded in some countries in that region. That follows a pattern of resilience that researchers have found in many parts of the world.
“After decades of repression by anti-religionist, authoritarian regimes, in the face of national tragedies, and following serious self-inflicted harm from moral failures by religious leaders, religion has shown the ability to rebound,” he said.
Feb 07, 2010
These people believe in A god. The rest of us don't believe in ANY gods.
People are insecure and don't believe they are good so by believing in a god the have an excuse as most religions tell them they are no good and something to believe in when they have no hope.
It's a coping mechanism that other people took advantage of to control them, get power and money/goods.
The next thing is people will do or believe almost anything to be part of the group.
How else can you explain everyone that believe in Jesus pay preachers, priests, churches money when that's why Jesus died, protesting that very thing and was as he knew, would get killed for it? Yet today every church almost is a bunch of moneychangers!
Those are the major reasons people do religion. Once you understand them god makes no sense.
As Archie Bunker said, religion, faith is when you believe in things no one in their right mind would believe in. And he was right!!
We are on the verge of a much broader revelation of spirituality. One that will focus on our love for our commonalities rather that our hatred for our apparent differences. People today, especially the young, are not satisfied with the ridge religious partitioning that divides us. More is being demanded in place of belief systems. More will be given to give substance to our individual internal faith, and we will all emerge the better for it
the whole Satanism problem should be studied.
Though priests from many religions are still useful in many ways.
How tolerant and rational is that?
They sound like insecure school yard bullies.
I'm with Bitbull. If one is able and willing to marry their physical education (intellect) with a metaphysical education (life=severly limited perception of reality, of EVERYTHING), one may realize death is nothing to be protected from, or afraid of.
i.e. if one considers all of physical existence is just a continuum of energy condensed into varying states along it, one realizes death is just a transition of states along that continuum. From life (physicality,perception,self) to ... what? Are self and perception obliterated with physicality? Are they liberated from physicality? Is it a rejoining with the continuum, what good is that in absence of perception? Is it just just nothing? Certainly scary to one who can't conceive of anything beyond life. But what prospects to one who knows there is so much more beyond!
If not for religion of the Jews and Christians for the past 4000 years, please provide any sound speculative rationale as to where society would be today.
Would pagen Greek or Roman civilizations have ended slavery and encouraged unalienable individual rights?
What damage? We have supposedly educated scientists asserting humans are causing 'global climate change'. Talk about the damage they want to do to our economy!
A few parents who are forced to send their children to government schools and are challenging a theory is a huge threat to you? How insecure you must be!
Not fearing is not the same thing as welcoming, or seeking out. But if death is something one is afraid of... well, fearing the inevitable isn't very healthy.
If you are talking to me, take a good look at history and tell me what the world be like now if without the Jews, Christians and Muslims?
And don't play the moral relativism crap. Take a real serious look at the good AND bad of the pagan systems as well as the good and bad of the Judeo-Christian systems.
As a start, Rome collapsed because of socialism. The Holy Roman Empire replaced it. What else would have replaced Rome? China, barbarians, some Indian or Persian empire?
What other culture promoted the Golden Rule at a grass roots level?
The sciences demand measurable tests for our observations. While that is reasonable for the physical universe, much of our existence has its meaning and value in the unmeasurable part, i.e. beauty, love and life itself. Clearly life moves forward, evolves if you will. But the path is not a string of “happy accidents!” The amazing biochemistry that moves life forward, does not leave thumbs sticking out of our foreheads, but instead gives us eyes made with crystal clear lenses, stereoscopic vision, and the ability to see colors. Who is so bold as to claim the organismic originated these wonder into their DNA?
Can't answer the question? That's what happens when the PC left eradicates the history of western civilization from government schools.
It's OK to totally ignore the contributions made by Christianity for the past 2000 years, like ending slavery, but if a few of those Christians question evolution, they must be crushed. How tolerant!
And it is no surprise such 'tolerant' people can only fling insults instead of answers.
Dr. Mengele contributed much to science, no? Science can advance much faster if we didn't have to worry about morality or ethics.
Sorry, no fear here, but with a lifetime as an electrical engineer, my "selfish disire to trump" is pretty low. There IS beauty and love, and it does act as the underlying force that makes it all make sense! No religionist I! Just a 70 year old student of life.
"Accept that you can't be an authority on evolution just because you wanna be. Evolution is real and true and you will never understand why"
Evolution is simply the tool by which the Universe is shaped and unfolded. We are but a bit of virus on a speck of space dust, somewhere out near the edge of a galaxy that like uncountable others, is exploding through uncharted space! One needs to check their egos when it is all seen in context, don't you think?
How do you know it hasn't been cured? A multi-dimensional universe is not science fiction anymore and there may well be a place where one's 'soul' can go. We are still too dumb and blind to see it.
Detached cynicism belies the attitude that youre above it all, that you view both sides with equal disdain. You must be God then- but then you would have some control which you dont, without interaction. But i am addressing you, so maybe you are a demigod at least or an angel or jinn perhaps? Nephelim? Balaams ass??
While we're getting all poetical...
Only the weak let the fear and anger define them however. Fear and anger are manifestations of your own negative energy, these drain you because you let them. And you are clearly drained. Hope and love are the other side of the coin (really it's just hope and fear, +/-, i'd say), of course, which we are all capable of, but it's much harder to draw the positive in, than it is to just let out with the negative. That's entropy for you, I guess.
And for the record I am anti-organized religion, I don't believe in any god/creator or the soul, I wouldn't even consider myself spiritual, though I could see how one might construe me as such.
No, not "all" of us feel this way. Just those who have limited their allowable inputs to the physical realm.
Well no, not that narrow view! But it does make one begin to search a little deeper. What you find when you search, is not some "drug" though. It is a nearly infinite expansion of possibilities! And, yes, it can leave one a bit euphoric I suppose.
The demands that religionists put on others, to reinforce that addiction, that LIE, for them, is the cause of much misery and strife. Its not real, it must end.
Sorry, I missed answering this comment. Here we are a bit more in agreement. Demands of religionists really put me off some 50 years ago, and continues to this day. Truth has always been available to each of us. But, we are incapable in taking a very big "bite" of it, and are unable to digest most of it. So, What is offered is always tailored to the individual seeker. You simply cannot prepackage truth with any real depth. Only the desire to know more is universal. But is is never thrust upon us. It must be sought by each of us. When the honest desire to know is strong enough, then real growth begins.
Stalin, Mao, Pot, Hitler, Ill...atheists all have murdered millions. That is easy to prove.
I see once again you choose to miss the point that science is beginning develop real theories that a 'heaven', a place for a human spirit to go, is possible.
What else could religion be for, or faith or 'spirituality' if you will, than relief from this terrible reality? Don't mean that pap is true however. You and Casper.
Good job...
A majority elected Obama. Are they rational and reasonable?
Prove it. You claim to be rational and reasonable. The evidence is clear regarding the numbers for atheist murders. Or, are you including those the atheists murdered for their religion into the mix?
Democide, murder by government:
http://www.hawaii...RDER.HTM
While that a bit of an over statement, yes. Having the balance of spirituality gives "the peace that surpasses understanding". And, until it is experienced, it is simply "God candy" to folks like you.
That often is the launch point. Pain is the great course corrector and primary teacher.
You assume that my reality is in some way inferior to your reality. Denigrating my mental acuity is childish nonsense. My years of study have given me a continuity of understanding that cover pre-time/space to so far beyond it would make you head spin!
Have we all forgotten that classical scientists (and indeed, many of today) had as a goal to reconcile God with empirical science?
I am hardly one to say I have all or even any of the answers; however, I am intelligent enough to know that I have no way to prove or disprove God's existence, in the same manner I have no way to prove or disprove the universe just popped into existence for no reason or just always existed.
Give it a rest; neither side is willing to give ground to the other. Science will advance, as will spirituality.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
Personally, I have never understood how believing in one thing or another, in God or not in God, should in ANY way affect how one performs science. Science is a process, not a belief system.
To quote Albert Einstein:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
"Planck saw the scientist as a man with imagination and faith,"
Planck had a choice.
To accept WHAT IS would be to kill the advancement of science for all time. If we knew WHAT IS, why would we bother trying to discover anything? The fact that we haven't the slightest freaking clue WHAT IS (in the grand cosmic scheme of things, anyway), much less WHY IT IS; however, I will not argue your right or choice to contend faith-based belief systems against science-based. You are free to believe or disbelieve anything without affecting me, despite your tenuous belief that my and others' belief systems "do too much damage to be tolerated," and "are a threat to the world."
Intolerance is the only threat to the world I've seen in this thread. Additionally, speculating on what Dead Al might or might not have said/meant in a time in which he does not exist, is as fruitless as this debate.
Also to marjon, my apologies for misconstruing your intent/agreement.
You holdouts are a diminishing subset of a much larger group which has gradually succumbed to reason. Time to quit. Cold turkey. Exercise helps a great deal- I am serious about this. You cant be comfortable with yourself if your temple's in disarray.
I guess you haven't studied quantum mechanics.
'What' is what we want it to be. The act of observation changes the 'what'.
You have yet to challenge or respond to my references to Planck and to defend your assertion regarding religious violence.
All you can do is insult, which suggests you have no response.
Also, your dogmatic belief in science sounds very much like the radical religionists you attack and insult.
Max Planck april 23 1858- oct 4 1947 : his greatgrandfather and grandfather were both theology professors in gottingen. He grew up in a religious family during a religion-dominated era. With most characters you may wish to quote from the past, they have to be understood within their context, which includes where their paycheck is coming from. Quote modern people and I will quote you many more who think more like dawkins. And the list keeps growing.
So you are equating 'religion' to any belief system, including the belief there is no God. Which means atheism is a religion as well as the scientific method. After all, scientists have faith that the method will provide the solutions they seek.
Christians ended slavery in England and prohibited slavery in New England.
I would submit socialism is a negative religion as its supporters use it to control people to their detriment and to the benefit of the government priests like Obama.
What is truly great about science is that consensus does not matter. Science is about what can be proven. One individual can prove the earth orbits the sun and it matters not the consensus.
It's amazing what a background in theology can do for a physicist.
Maybe Dawkins should study quantum mechanics.
Not all Atheists do that.
Then again some of us are Agnostics because we aren't into religious beliefs, not even Atheism.
Can't be done, that is it would be purely speculative and not very sound. However it is reasonable to assume that there more people alive. A LOT of people have died in religious wars.
Why not? The Roman Empire was Christian for a long time. That didn't end the blood sports. They even got worse. The Bible gives clear support for people that want to us it to justify slavery. Heck Islamic countries, which wouldn't exist without Judaism and Christianity, were the last to make chattel slavery illegal.
Ethelred
How many compared to wars of empire and politics? Do you condemn politics and nationalism as well for such reasons?
There would be a LOT more people alive if a-religious tyrants like Stalin and Mao had not murdered them.
Christians are not perfect, just forgiven. But they did end slavery in the British Empire.
And the point?
I would say the that the only successful communist communities are religious based. Monasteries are one example. They are successful because the members are all volunteers.
And, Christians in Britain agitated for the end of slavery in the Empire and succeeded.
http://www.christ...?start=2
http://www.aaregi...?id=1498
Again, true religion is the internal spiritual interface, not an external dogmatic doctrinaire driven organization.
I believe that is way it was meant to be.
God warned what a government would do in 1 Samuel 8:11-20. And the first government of the Jews was a theocracy.
After reviewing the Bible a bit I submit the whole point is an attempt to train people to have faith.
Even scientists must have faith in their methodology and faith that their methodology will lead somewhere. People who have no faith have little hope and resort to insults and extreme negativity and I think there is evidence they live shorter, more miserable lives.
"Frankl also noted the barriers to humanity’s quest for meaning in life. He warns against “…affluence, hedonism, [and] materialism…” in the search for meaning. "
http://www.viktor...ets.html
I see few inconsistencies with Frankl and much of Christianity.
You asked a question. I tried to point things out.
However the most deadly Civil War ever was the Chinese Civil War. Twenty million dead and due to religious insanity. Insane individual claimed to be Jesus. Several of them. Without Christianity they wouldn't have had the levers to get so many killed.
The condemnation was yours. I just pointed out the facts.
Yes. So what? That wasn't your question. They would exist with or without Christianity. Hitler would not have. He was Christian. Stalin was most likely raised Christian. Both were products of a Christian nation.
Only if their god is real. And I don't care if Hitler, or the people responsible for the Thirty War are forgiven.
Ethelred
"Just because somebody may hold a particular worldview (along with other views) doesn't make him a spokesman for that view, or even remotely representative of others who hold that view. No matter how his madness is painted, he was still evil incarnate."
http://www.straig...hristian
http://askville.a...=7221090
according to Rick Warren, fellowship- communing and sharing with like-minded people-
is an integral part of a spiritual existance. You may want to consider it. I stopped reading at the chapter on service- hell with that.
Okay,I'm confused. Would you like to explain who Rick Warren is? And what exactly was it you stopped reading?
I wonder how many of you 'rational' non-believers voted for BHO. How many support Al Gore's intentions to control the world's economy, for our own good, of course.
I have read Frankl's book.
Claiming religious doctrine results in wars is not the same a claiming those who twist religious doctrine to their own political ends.
Charismatic leaders can twist any philosophy to get their followers to do their bidding. How many 'rational' non-believers' voted for Obama's 'hope and change'?
It wasn't a cheap shot. You were the one that asked. I answered. YOU brought up Stalin and Mao which had NOTHING to do with the question you asked. So I mentioned Hitler. Just to point out that two could play that game.
And I am NOT an atheist and I already said that. However it is NOT a dirty word.
Yes. And he was still Christian. If you don't want him mentioned don't go off on tangents that had nothing to do with your original question.
Dictators exist with or without Christianity. You asked what the world be like without it. It could be better place without Judaism and Christianity and therefor Islam as well. But we cannot know that. We CAN know that a LOT of people have been killed in wars due to those three religions.
Ethered
You seem to be one of them.
The Bible does as well. Josephus also refers to "James the brother of Jesus". I don't think either mentioned him being younger. Or older.
By the way who mentioned James? You seem to brought that up out of thin air. I thought that post was aimed at me but I can't tell for sure, because I sure didn't bring up James. But it came right after the one that clearly was a reply to me and it didn't appear to be a reply to Otto.
I have this sneaking suspicion that it was aimed at me except that it had nothing to do with what I wrote. Except for the proximity issue I wouldn't have a clue who it was in reply to.
Ethelred
Actually it wasn't here till AFTER you started accusing people.
Perhaps if you were more polite and didn't launch preemptive strikes.
Its a possibility but people, believers or not, are humans and SOME humans are willing to kill to get what they want. Being Christian doesn't stop it. Nor does not being Christian. But it WOULD stop religious wars.
Almost ALL of Europe is a failure? Socialism does NOT equal Communism.
A lot I hope. Lots more Christians voted for him.
No, you don't know what Christianity is.
Ethelred
We can also now that millions MORE than a LOT have been killed in wars that had NOTHING to do with religion.
Using war as an excuse to attack religion is weak especially since the religious doctrines of Judaism and Christianity promote peace.
And communism and fascism ARE socialism, state control of private property.
How is that hope and change working out for you? 10+% unemployment is working out quite well for BHO, no?
No. There are TWO reference to Jesus in Josephus. One is exactly as I quoted if my memory serves me. The other, that may only be in SOME copies, is clearly bogus. If Josephus had written that one he would have been a Christian.
Allegedly the bogus versions came via Eusebius' copies, a man that advocated lying to support his religion. The other versions came from another source.
I just don't feel like checking up at the moment.
OK it was easy, a lot easier than when I first went looking for this stuff. Wikipedia makes this a lot easier than it used to be.
http://en.wikiped...on_Jesus
That reference in Josephus is the EARLIEST reference to Jesus in any non-Biblical writing. And Josephus was born after Jesus was supposed to have died. There is no record from the time of Jesus. However there was no record of Pontius Pilate either till sometime in the 1990s when a building dedication was found that mentioned him.
Ethelred
You seem to have great difficulty in understanding YOUR OWN questions.I didn't attack. I ONLY posted a fact. Again, the alleged attack is only in your mind.
You asked. I answered with facts. Not my fault that you consider facts an attack.So why all the killing in the Bible at the behest of Jehovah? Oh and this from Jesus.
Yes ever so peaceful.
You might want to try learning a bit more about your religion.
Ethelred
Hoover Dam for instance.
I notice that you ignored the success of Socialism in Europe.
By the way I am NOT a Socialist. I am simply pointing out your ignorance on this matter.Far better than things were going with Dumbass.Pretty much what was expected after Bush wrecked the economy.
You are aware that this has nothing to do with your question don't you? Its a sign that someone is loosing an argument when they bring in random off topic things in an attempt to divert attention.
Ethelred
The same argument can be made that nation-states and any type of coercive government is bad because people fight each other over nationalism or territory. And MORE people have died from these wars or from their own tyrannical leaders (Stalin, Mao, etc.) than all 'religious' wars combined.
And many who attack religion on this basis are very supportive of a coercive state.
So, how is Europe successful? Lower taxes? More liberty? Higher economic growth?
http://bookrate.w...eligous/
A war can be considered if religiously inspired or condoned by the state religion (it's what they're for) IMO as in Protestant England vs catholic Spain. Would they have happened otherwise? Of course- war is inevitable. Religions make them easier to instigate to ensure they happen when where how and why. In my liberated opinion.
The only reason England and Spain went to war was for religion? It had noting to do with all the gold the Spanish had taken from the Americas or all the land they had conquered?
Napoleon tried to conquer Russia to convert them to Catholicism?
You prefer that people submit to their emperors, their 'betters' and be good slaves and serfs?
You clearly don't understand that I only responded, WITH FACTS and no opinions, to your question. Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer.Sometimes, sometimes, YES at present.
Which is relevant to the discussion about religion in what way? Still trying diversions I see.
Ethelred
Yes. It was Spain that decided to go to war. The reasons stated by the King were religious.
However I personally wouldn't call it a religious war even if I can make a good presentation that it was. For Queen Elizabeth it was about money as much as it was about religion. But it was about religion to a large extent.
Seemed more like political suicide to me. Otto does tend to go over the top. He usually is going on about power conspiracies.
Ethelred
Italian mercenaries seem to have been particularly nasty. Keep in mind that is what he was talking about, mercenaries.That is as harsh as Russia's weather. I don't think that was the reason. He actually thought he was going to win.Maybe. He was clearly torqued off. He was also even more arrogant than Napoleon. A very bad drunk as well. He was one of many men that the world would have been better off without. Like Napoleon or Julius Caesar.I don't see them as unique. I see them as seeing more planning than is there. Which is a popular way of thinking.
Perhaps. Sometimes anyway. So does self-hypnosis.
Ethelred
This is the first site I have run across that moderates this way.
It doesn't. I know that you are aware that I am without religion of any sort. You have made similar claims.
And this site had nearly zero moderation till recently. It seemed to work extremely well.
Yes, I do know that is their site. They can wreck it way they want. And I can complain. They can delete the complaints. If they want they can ban me. It won't bother me much since banning me would be a sign that this site is not fit to post on.
Now when Ming threatened to ban me on Apolyton I apologized. And asked what the heck I did since I hadn't broken any rules. He said that no I hadn't but stop doing it anyway. Turned out that the guy I was arguing with had problems. I respect Ming. This I don't since there is literally no one to respect as long as they behave this way.
Ethelred
So, how is Europe successful? Lower taxes? More liberty? Higher economic growth?
Sometimes, sometimes, YES at present.
Which is relevant to the discussion about religion in what way? Still trying diversions I see." (Ethelred)
So what are your facts in defense of socialism? (By a self-proclaimed non-socialist, no less.)
It is pertinent in that many people who attack religious coercion support state coercion, socialism. Even Ayn Rand supports a strong state.
So why do we know about it?
Quintilius Varus where are my Eagles?
It doesn't sound to me like Augustus was covering up anything. Not there anyway. Varus screwed up and got 15,000 men killed.
JFK was shot by Oswald. Oswald MIGHT have had help.
If you want to discuss it:
http://www.physor...721.html
Otto, while I think you have a point, I also KNOW you get carried away. Most people in power have more ambition than brains.
Ethelred
Why did you quote that. You made no comment on it. YOU brought socialism into to the discussion so it was you that appeared to be trying to derail it.
Bringing up controversial irrelevancies is SOP for some. It is very popular on religion threads.
That is both a generalization and still irrelevant to this discussion. Socialism is not the same as state coercion no matter how many times you repeat it.
Want me to start posting irrelevant comment about the Religious Right trying coerce schools into pushing their religious belief? I only bring it up as an example of what you are doing.
Ethelred
I am anti-religion myself but realize I would not be if I had been born a few gens ago. We are all given the parts we play. Anti is more fun anyway. Pro/anti, 2 sides/1 coin. Both sides serve. The light needs the dark to define it. Humans are hopelessly aesthetic which is often mistaken for spirituality. People are often religious not for any other reason than the 'feeling' it gives them, the recall of the initial epiphany. Hard to reason your way around that.
DPRK (North Korea) is a nation. Is it successful? It exists, it persists and survives. Same for Myanmar, Cuba, Haiti,....
If you care to look at some facts, check out Heritage Foundation's ranking of economic freedom. Europe as a whole doesn't fare well.
The relevance of socialism to those to are attacking religion is those who attack religion coercion support state coercion. Why? Do they resent the competition? USSR tried to destroy the churches.
Socialism IS state coercion, control of private property just as any government IS force (coercion). I use Socialism, by Mises as the definition of socialism as he had a front row seat.
Never trust Heinlein when makes idiotic remarks about politics. -Ethelred
Why not? He wasn't UNIFORMLY vilified and the present British admin is on its way out as well. Let me know if he WINS.
Ethelred
Is it European?
Diversions seem to be your only tactic. Therefor it is clear that you DO UNDERSTAND that the European DEMOCRATIC partially Socialist states are successful.
Thank you for this clear, though not explicit, admission of that.Which remains totally irrelevant to what I posted. Your continuing efforts to paint me as a fanatic so you can ignore the facts is pathetic. Especially since I did not attack.
So since all you can do is divert it is clear that YOU also think more people would be alive today if Christianity did not exist. Socialism exists in Christian countries. Indeed Christian Democrats are often Socialists. So you are deliberately bringing in nations that are neither Socialist or Democratic since their principle property is that they are DICTATORSHIPS.
Ethelred
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SUCCESSFUL NATION?
It doesn't matter if a dictator controls the property of a state or if it a 'democratic' mob, individuals do not have control of private property, the state does.
"So since all you can do is divert it is clear that YOU also think more people would be alive today if Christianity did not exist"
I have said the exact opposite. You are not paying attention. This is the SECOND time I have pointed out this error to you.
And that is still just more of your diversionNo you didn't. Where did you SHOW that no one died in Religious Wars? You have only said there are other kinds of wars which I don't deny I simply note that does not make the millions of death from Religious Wars go away.I didn't make an error. I pointed out that it wasn't relevant to the FACT that people died in Religious Wars.
It is just another diversion.
Ethelred
I like his books but his opinions on politics should be taken with a grain of salt. Or perhaps a salt mine.
Is that like One Small Step For (a) Man One Giant Leap For Mankind?
Ethelred
A Christian believes in 1 God (or 3, depending on who you ask, except Unitarians are definitely 1).
An agnostic may or may not. "I used to be undecided, but now? I'm not so sure..."
What a Latter Day Saint believes is open to question.
Many of the Eastern religious styles believe in an abundant plenitude of gods.
It generally looks like a battle of numbers. (-:
This despite Futuristic & Preteristic interpretations being invented by the pope's organisation.
Yes, we do live in a strange world, & it ain't gettin' any less strange.
YOU made up the definition. Define it. By your definition, North Korea is a successful nation.
"If the state controls it is because the State owns it. In which case it isn't private. Even the US has always had a lot of public property. Always."
Talk about evading. All the government rules and regulations which control you and your property is not socialistic? If you are in business the government forces you to pay a minimum wage and pay many other taxes. Who really owns the business? GM CEO was fired by BHO.
Those who attack religion do so with a claim religion has caused so many deaths. To put that in perspective, MILLIONS more people have been murdered in wars and pogroms by those who are not religious. So when such individuals begin to condemn the tyranny of nation-states as well, their motivation for religious condemnation is not about saving human lives
"“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.”"
I am going to leave out quoting the evasions because of space limitations.
Rules and regulations have been around for millenia. Are you demanding pure anarchy?
There have always been taxes in the US. Always. Even under the failed Articles of Confederation.
WE the people now own GM. Why shouldn't we fire the idiot. Because he asked for help? Which you seem to want avoid thinking about.
All the above were replies to your continuous evasion.
Are you ever planning deal with your original question in any other way.
Ethelred
You just refuse to get it.
You are the one that is doing all the condemning. I only posted a fact.
So perhaps you should look at just what got you mad at me for mentioning what religions did. Which is what you actually asked for.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Ethelred
Otto brought it up. He seems to think that Heinlein had great insight into government. I think Heinlein never noticed that humans behave similarly in business as they do in government.
And yes that is a nice quote. The question is did even he match that. If so then he picked them out because he did. Few need to program a computer. Less need to conn a ship. I don't need to pitch manure. I suppose I am capable of it. But I am also capable of finding a better way.
I think problem solving covers most of that. The rest is to look clever. Which is part of being a writer. Especially when you write for geeks like RAH did.
Who me a geek? Yeah.
Ethelred
http://democratic...3000000/
Communists are still promoting their 'faith'. Where is the condemnation from the anti-religious?
What does 'successful; mean? For someone claiming to only promote facts, 'successful' is a subjective term. Why won't you define the term?
This from OTTO:
"One more thing marjoe, your atheist list is a losing game. More people have died and murdered throughout the course of history over the cause of religion than any other. Only one-eyes like yourself could fail to acknowledge that and I'm sure you've heard it before. Yes?"
I am challenging that assertion and are you, Ethelred, defending it?
@Austux-
You mean secular training? I skimmed your reference- what are you referring to? Preterism- are they saying the 2nd coming came and went? (my feeling)
First you gotta address the specifics of this link. Youre not doing that. Forget or just need more attention?
http://bookrate.w...eligous/
http://atheism.ab...hGod.htm
-He was anti-Xian but invoked Gott, like I say, to justify the need to fight and purge. Whether sincere or opportunist matters not; mein kampf was studied and used to enthuse the people. Troops carried it in their rucksacks. God was their ultimate enabler and deliverer, not der Fuhrer. God was an integral part of the ideology.
Hey Toto, I looked at it.
Did you miss this:
""How reliable are ancient and medieval atrocity statistics?"
The short answer is, "We don't know."
The longer answer is that these are the numbers we've been given, so we pretty much have to take them or leave them at face value. We can't easily check behind them."
http://users.erol....htm#n.2
"Audacity of Hope" was used in the same way.
I think I mentioned it earlier, the reason leaders adopted a religion was it was already successful with the people. Unscrupulous leaders used religion to advance their power. Henry VIII among many other kings chafed at being controlled by Rome. Why did they feel the need to acknowledge Rome at all? To keep the people supporting them. German princes protect Luther to escape Rome's power.
For all these reasons, this is why the US first amendment disallows a state religion.
I don't see anyone like that left on the thread.
OK Otto is still here.
Are you ever going to admit that you can't bring those killed in religious wars back to life by pointing out that other people have killed people as well?
People living out their lives with out fear of starvation or government brutality or religious persecution with a reasonable chance to better themselves. I did ask you why you think they AREN'T successful. I note that you won't answer that.
Still evading.
Can't you read what I write? I never defended it. Why do you even ask? Oh yes you think I attacked religion by stating clear facts.
Ethelred
Oddly enough it doesn't. It stops a FEDERAL religion. At least one Supreme Court Justice thinks states can, under the US Constitution form a State Religion.
Had to look up his name. I can never remember it
Clarence Thomas
Ethelred
""The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory."
http://www.google...9BSTO1G1
http://www.city-journal.org
/html/17_2_clarence_thomas.html
I can agree with this.
Times change. Sometimes even Popes think about reality. Then again that is NOT the Pope speaking. That would be like saying that what Taillard de Chardin said was the same as the Pope speaking.
Of course you do. But your wrong. Eight members of the Supreme Court disagree as do most Constitutional scholars. The key is that the Thomas not only thinks it was that way, he thinks it still is that way, despite the the 14th Amendment which ALL other members of the Supreme Court found to apply.
Ethelred