How prevalent is atheism?

[plekhanov 10]

O....K....and I'm not sure why you're picking me up on this.

 

I think the OP and I agreed - all I was saying is that it isn't central.

Err perhaps because you began your previous post with the words 'Actually, the law of reciprocity is certainly a part of Christianity' when Wildcat never denied that it was.

 

Plekhanov - it's not 'my' Church - it's the tenets of the Christian faith. How individuals choose to interpret that is up to them but the bottom line is that's what belief is about.

Really and all Churches are in agreement about what the tenets of the Christian faith are are they?

 

About the only thing they all agree on is that ‘Jesus Christ is the saviour of mankind’ or something along those lines. After that they pick and choose whatever they see fit in the bible and just make other stuff up and a fair few of them place significant emphasis on the importance of avoiding the Almighty’s displeasure hence the existence of so many self described ‘God fearing Christians’.

 

As for morality and what's good - despite what you seem to believe, all teh evils in the world can't be laid at the door of people who have faith. Quite a few are fom atheists as well.

And when did I claim that all or even most of ‘teh evils in the world’ can ‘be laid at the door of people who have faith’?

 

You asserted that ‘a Christian will do good even with no hope of reciprocity, because of their Faith’ I was simply pointing out that this can be and often is a double edged sword as people who make a point of ignoring evidence can and do commit monstrous wrongs (such as for example sabotaging attempts to limit the spread of AIDS in Africa & elsewhere) in the belief that they are doing ‘good’.

[plekhanov 10]

I wasn't being lazy (and certainly not patronising as Dozy claims).

 

Virtually all children of my generation were brought up as 'Christians' and so were my parents, and their parents....back through the generations.

 

Christainity and it's teachings have been an essential ingredient in the morality of British life for centuries. From my point of view it is only in the last 40 years or so that morality in the UK has become predominantly hedonistic rather than idealistic.

Odd then isn’t it how the NHS and so forth developed as Christianity declined in the UK?

 

If you really think morality was so ‘idealistic’ in the UK’s past then I suggest you read up on Regency, Victorian and Edwardian morality and how it operated in reality.

 

People still pay lip-service to 'reciprocity' as you call it but you only have to look at the problem of school bullying these days (for example) to realise that 'do as you would be done by' has fallen by the wayside.

I take it you never read Tom Browns School Days, believe it or not school bullying is not an invention of the late 20th century.

 

And in spite of what plekhanov claims misogyny and homophobia were not part of the curriculum at my CofE primary school and sexual 'morality' wasn't a subject I had to face up to until some time later.

 

We do remember don't we that I was and am talking about the morality instilled in children ?

Really so you don’t think that religious schools never taught religiously inspired sex ed?

 

At the Church I was required to attend as a child I was repeatedly told that sex outside marriage is wrong, that homosexuality is a sin and that women should submit to their husbands all those teachings are taken straight from the bible and have been heavily promoted by Christians in the UK. I’m happy to say that I refute that ‘morality’ as it would seem to most other people in the UK and we are all the better off for it.

[Jonesy 10]

What well respected scientist has strong religious beliefs nowadays?

 

 

Oh for goodness sake. I didn't intend getting involved in this thread, but when I see posts like this I really do despair....... Do you honestly believe there is not a single 'well respected' (by whom?) scientist on this planet who has strong religious beliefs? Deary me...... Unbelievable.

[Bloomdido 10]

Scientists can be deluded just like anyone else.

[Funky_Gibbon 42]

And that's a good point too. Lots of people in UK were taught and brought up with Christianity as a child. I'm sure that Christian values remain with them even though in later life they profess to be atheists.

 

What are Christian values exactly? Most Christian values tend to be shared by every other religion in the world and also shared by athiests as well. I think it would be more correct to say that people share human values which just happen to be taught as religious values by whichever religion is prevalent.

[redrobbo 10]

So far as I can tell a very large proportion of the population live their lives as if there was no god that is to say 'without theism' a much smaller proportion will positively identify themselves as atheists though.

 

That's what I thought, but this straw poll would tend to suggest that if asked, a large proportion of respondents will identify themselves as astheists.

 

I used to be a confirmed member of the Methodist church, a Sunday-school teacher and chapel youth club leader. I was beginning studies to become a lay preacher when a personal crisis occurred in my life and I stopped attending church.

 

I have now lost my faith. It was a gradual and very slow process, what I have described as a journey of over 30 years duration from being an active Christian to becoming an atheist. I no longer believe there is a god.

[Wildcat 10]

Scientists can be deluded just like anyone else.

 

I inadvertantly downloaded a video by Dr. Robert C. Newman who has a doctorate from Cornell University in theoretical astrophysics, but is also a leading Creationist (not the non-hierachical comedian).

 

Having watched the video I am astounded that someone with a qualification in astrophysics is still coming out with the tired old argument from design that was destroyed by David Hume two centuries ago. He apparently has no ability to distinguish between a good argument and a bad one, repeating all the arguments I have ever heard, each one with a solid refutation.

 

One particular argument he uses shows a misunderstanding of probability. Essentially his argument is that the evolutionary theory depends upon a lot of random events and mutations. The chances of all these random events having happened is so small that there has to be a designer.

 

To refute his argument think of a random number generator that produces a random number between say one and a billion. It is certain that a one in a billion outcome will occur every time. This astrophysist however has such a poor grasp of probability his argument would lead him to believe that there must be a hidden hand behind the outcome because the chances of it occurring is so slim.

 

It is alarming that he can make such a fundamental statistical error and then make films about it and publish his stuff on the internet without challenge.

 

Anyway there are scientists who are Christian, in this case one who acquired his scientific degree and since then has spouted Creationist rubbish without an understanding of logic.

[Bago 10]

So many points I wanted to address, but I'll just concentrate on a few.

 

About the poll, it's not entirely representable of all religions. Since there are a handful of religion whereby there are no central "God". There are deities, and other mythical figures, but I don't think that they are meant to be real. Examples of this are Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism. So I didn't vote. I would've voted a "No, I still do believe in a religion which has no central God", if the choice was there.

 

I was only taught the term atheist in my R.E. lessons. I don't think I ever did learn the term "agnostic" til when I was much older. I've always called myself an atheist til I did discover that I am somewhat spiritual as a person, and I am still discovering this aspect of myself more and more. If I had to choose, I don't think I can ever believe in a religion which has a central God-figure, where he/she is meant to be real. Yet, I can live by a religion which is more ethically-based or philosophically-biased.

 

It is from understanding what my mom was practising to being brought up in the UK do I question all faiths. I had always thought that what she did was part of the culture and not related to a religion, but I was wrong.

 

I do think that there is an underlying set of values which are common in all religions in this world. Yet, there are different aspects which differ greatly too. Some have one central God. Others have more than one God. Others have none, but deities take place of God instead, and demonstrate the same values. Whereas others are more biased towards a good appreciation of life and nature. Some are encouraged to worship the sky. Or an animal. (Basically, what the animal stand for, but not in a literal context. e.g. in Japan, they worship the badger figure, for some reason?? I remember seeing all these statuettes in temples.)

 

A quick note. Even though I am not a Christian, I have attended many Christian churches. Of different setups. I have never been made unwelcomed. Most services can be attended by strangers. Even my friend is choosey in the ones that he attends, and he is a Christian as well. I remember him telling me this when he was based in London.

 

Yet, I know so many other Christians who do not practise by attending services, or be a part of their local church community. It is more private, and they practice in their own home. To me, a religion is a *very* private affair, and it is not done for show, or to be affirmed by others.

 

Christian churches oversea are also very different too, than the typical community-based ones in the UK. The setups are different. I've also attended many who have a very cultural setting to it individually. Some people take the Christening thing very literally and drown you in a pool! It can come across as a cult when it's like that.

[plekhanov 10]

So many points I wanted to address, but I'll just concentrate on a few.

 

About the poll, it's not entirely representable of all religions. Since there are a handful of religion whereby there are no central "God". There are deities, and other mythical figures, but I don't think that they are meant to be real. Examples of this are Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism. So I didn't vote. I would've voted a "No, I still do believe in a religion which has no central God", if the choice was there.

Did you miss the bit in the poll where it said "No, I believe in a god(s) and practise a religion"?

 

I was only taught the term atheist in my R.E. lessons. I don't think I ever did learn the term "agnostic" til when I was much older. I've always called myself an atheist til I did discover that I am somewhat spiritual as a person, and I am still discovering this aspect of myself more and more. If I had to choose, I don't think I can ever believe in a religion which has a central God-figure, where he/she is meant to be real. Yet, I can live by a religion which is more ethically-based or philosophically-biased.

Atheism simply means without god/s it doesn't mean without spirituality.

[Bago 10]

Did you miss the bit in the poll where it said "No, I believe in a god(s) and practise a religion"?

Deities and God are different. You need to know about the others religion or faith in order to compare and know why Christianity is different to them. I don't know how to explain it, but I just remember the distinction between them all. You may use the term "God" in English, but in its original religious text that the religion or faith was based on, it has a different meaning and context.

 

Atheism simply means without god/s it doesn't mean without spirituality.

Then I was right most of my life then. I have a more inclination to be drawn to Taoism... than Buddhism, even.

[banesmabes 10]

No, atheism isn't a religion. None is simply so they are aware they don't need any special rules for you or extra holidays, that sort of stuff.

Just to add to the data, I'm an atheist born to two Christian parents. i went to church till old enough to stay at home alone and that was that. My parents now no longer go to church either.

 

But maybe we do occasionally need special rules? Like my employer who doesn't expect atheists to object to going to a church service.

[banesmabes 10]

Quite right and you are legally protected from such discrimination. Atheism is a belief and you are protected just like any religious person is under the same legislation. You should be credited time to go home if they have shut the office and essentially locked you out. Talk to your union, a CAB or ACAS for advice on proceeding. Probably the best first step is look at this website, at bottom of page is a 56 page pdf. Normally just showing your employer a print off of your rights and asserting them is sufficient, but if not and you need to pursue it further remember you need to raise an internal grievance\complaint, if that isn't dealt with within a month, submit an employment tribunal application (the latest you can submit the ET is 3 months from date of incident). As said before get Union, ACAS or CAB advice.

 

Thanks for this. I did get advice from ACAS last year, they said that an employer can compel you to go if they can prove the event could not go ahead without you. However, as they have allowed me to take annual leave for the past 2 events that proves they don't need me to be there. The Humanist Association were very keen for me to take this to tribunal. To be honest, at the time I needed some time off anyway, so thought I may as well take it then as any other day, but I think I'm going to challenge it more vocally next time and tell them they need to give me an alternative that doesn't involve me having to take annual leave.