BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Random Thoughts

Hi Les and Linda, Sorry if my original post caused a bit of a stir! lol Back to your question, Les, I do agree that historical factors have a bearing on which countries have a larger religious population. You mentioned the USA as an anomaly to my theory of wealthier, more educated countries being more secular. Well, I think it's pretty hard to look at the US as one country as it's so diverse - both in relation to the distribution of religious people and in terms of socio-economic scales. But I think if one was to break it down, the same would apply in the US - most religious people would be located in the low socio-economic areas. But of course, the US has very strong historical reasons for having so many fundamentalist Christians, mainly the displacement of Puritans from 18th century Europe, who then emigrated to the New World. Linda, I'm sorry if I'm causing offence, but to me as an atheist and agnostic, believing in most of the dogma perpetuated by the organised religions today does indicate that the person is not a rational thinker. The two ARE mutually excusive to ME - but this is just my opinion. :)

Hi Firegirl,
Thanks for getting back to this thread and posting again. I do not think that it is the case that in the US "most religious people would be located in the low socio-economic areas." A disproportionate amount more than likely but "most" definitely not. So, would you please provide specific proof/resources/data to back up your claim regarding the correlation between religosity and socio-economic status in the US and elsewhere.

As for your statement about "rational thinker" vis-a-vis religious persons that is an opinion I believe that would be shared by a great percentage of atheists and many agnostics.
(I will try to get data on that at a later date if any exists).

I hope that you keep posting here but please back up your "factual" statements as opposed to opinions with verifiable and credible proof.

Who said this and what do you think about what was said? Could that statement be applicable to other established religions as well?
"damnable doctrine"- what a brilliant play on words.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and that would include my Father, Brother, and almost all of my best friends will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.

Who said this?- An unquestioning agnostic is both an oxymoron and a hypocrite who should be doomed to hell but unfortunately in all probability cannot be.

Hi Les, Sorry, I don't actually have any proof! :) It's just my opinion, but I will try to do a bit of research to see whether my theory stands up to scrutiny in the States or not! In regards to rational thinking, obviously religious people are capable of some form of rational thinking... There are many highly educated professionals who consider themselves to be religious. This is a huge condundrum to me, as I cannot understand such a person believing in dogma that clearly contradicts scientific principles, such as "creationist theory of evolution"... I just don't know how they can reconcile their beliefs with their "rational" mind...

Firegirl said; In regards to rational thinking, obviously religious people are capable of some form of rational thinking... There are many highly educated professionals who consider themselves to be religious. This is a huge condundrum to me, as I cannot understand such a person believing in dogma that clearly contradicts scientific principles, such as "creationist theory of evolution"... I just don't know how they can reconcile their beliefs with their "rational" mind...

Firegirl, you make an excellent point that is shared by many atheists and agnostics.It certainly is viewed as a conundrum by many. My own evolving theory is that religion for a huge segment of the world's population (not necessarily linked to educational level) is a type of societal/culturally manifested ego defense mechanism similar behaviorally to denial and rationalization- more about that train of thought later once I can articulate it in a meaningful manner...

I am attaching an article "The Clash Between Religion and Science" that was published in ABC News/Technology July 3, 2007. Firegirl and all please share your impressions of what the article discusses. Depending on where you are coming from and where you think you may ultimately be going, it can be interpreted in various ways.


Here's one reason why the war between science and religion cannot be resolved. Most scientists do not believe in God.
religion and science
abc news

That's one of the findings in a huge study of leading scientists at the 21 top-rated research universities in the United States. And there's more:

Almost 52 percent of the 1,646 scientists who participated in the study have no current religious affiliation compared with only 14 percent of the general population.

More than 31 percent said they do not believe in God, and another 31 percent said they do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out -- a whopping 62 percent of those surveyed.

More than 56 percent did not attend a religious service during the entire year preceding the survey.

Only 9.7 percent said they have "no doubts about God's existence."

The landmark study was conducted by sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund at the University at Buffalo, and Christopher P. Scheitle of Pennsylvania State University. Ecklund said it's the first study in decades of the religious beliefs and practices of "elite academics," and it included 271 in-depth interviews with leading scientists, some of which lasted several hours.

She notes that the participants may not be representative of scientists as a whole, because they are the superachievers in their fields, men and women who are obsessed with science. But the findings are important, she said, because these are the people who shape the scientific attitudes and goals of the nation's academic communities.

The clash between science and religion is as old as science itself, but it seems especially heated -- and particularly important -- these days because of burning issues ranging from evolution to stem cell research. It may seem that scientists tend to shy away from discussing religion, but Ecklund did not find that to be the case. About 75 percent of the scientists she surveyed, through a professional polling organization, agreed to participate in the study, a surprisingly high number. None of their names are being released.

Hi Firegirl and all,

If you are interested in documentation/information regarding the correlation between wealth and religiosity here is how to access it. I was not able to figure out how to access it directly, so here goes...

Keyword/Google Correlation of Religiosity and Wealth:Pew Study
Enter that article and go about half way down the page and you will see Read the full report here: The Pews Global Attitude Project. Click onto it.

The report is only 144 pages and covers a lot of topics.
Section 4 starting on p.41 Values and American Exceptionalism is the part most salient to our discussion

Their findings are pretty much what I expected and confirms pretty much what Firegirl was intuitively saying except in regards to the US. The findings might not be "politically correct" but appear to be objective and seem to be credible. After you read it we can discuss this issue some more if you would like.

A quartet of quotes to ponder...

1. A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief, it is a superstition.

2. Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

3. Where knowledge ends, religion begins.

4. Faith means not wanting to know what is true.

Can you identify who is being quoted?
Jose Bergamin, Isaac Asimov, Friedrich Nietzshe, and Benjamin Disraeli each is credited with one of these quotes. Can you match the quotes to the person resposible?

Effective March 28, worldwide the New York Times.com has been charging for the use of their online newspaper after one reads 20 articles per month for free.
So, I guess after the first 20 articles that I read, one of my sources for freethinking ideas won't be so free after all.

An important announcement from
the publisher of The New York Times

Dear New York Times Reader,

Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions. It�s an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform. The change will primarily affect those who are heavy consumers of the content on our Web site and on mobile applications.

This change comes in two stages. Today, we are rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in Canada, which will enable us to fine-tune the customer experience before our global launch. On March 28, we will begin offering digital subscriptions in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

If you are a home delivery subscriber of The New York Times, you will continue to have full and free access to our news, information, opinion and the rest of our rich offerings on your computer, smartphone and tablet. International Herald Tribune subscribers will also receive free access to NYTimes.com.

If you are not a home delivery subscriber, you will have free access up to a defined reading limit. If you exceed that limit, you will be asked to become a digital subscriber.

This is how it will work, and what it means for you:

* On NYTimes.com, you can view 20 articles each month at no charge (including slide shows, videos and other features). After 20 articles, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber, with full access to our site.
* On our smartphone and tablet apps, the Top News section will remain free of charge. For access to all other sections within the apps, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber.
* The Times is offering three digital subscription packages that allow you to choose from a variety of devices (computer, smartphone, tablet). More information about these plans is available at nytimes.com/access.
* Again, all New York Times home delivery subscribers will receive free access to NYTimes.com and to all content on our apps. If you are a home delivery subscriber, go to homedelivery.nytimes.com to sign up for free access.
* Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles.
* The home page at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times.

For more information, go to nytimes.com/digitalfaq.

Thank you for reading The New York Times, in all its forms.

Sincerely,
Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
Publisher, The New York Times
Chairman, The New York Times Company