If you ask someone what god(s) they believe in, and the answer is none, that person is an atheist. If they then add, "But I can't prove they don't exist", they are an agnostic atheist. What you believe, and what you believe you can know aren't the same things.
Atheists & Christians in the USA
- Thread starter Fraggle Rocker
- Start date
If you ask someone what god(s) they believe in, and the answer is none, that person is an atheist. If they then add, "But I can't prove they don't exist", they are an agnostic atheist. What you believe, and what you believe you can know aren't the same things.
So what are you really saying then? That there might be a God, just not the God as portrayed in any of the major religions? If that's so then how would you define a God? If you can't nail down a definition, how about a minimum definition, those things that a God must have to be a God. The very least definition I would expect would be God has to be the creator of the universe.
I just can't believe that. I believe the universe is natural and exists within the laws of nature. (No God needed)
You are underestimating how things tend to get interpreted by others, both Christians and non-Christians, educated or not.
If one swears by the Bible, and it later somehow turns out that one is not a Christian, generally, people will consider one a liar.
Generally, people have no scope for metaphors and such.
If the jury consists of mostly what you call "Rednecks", and Orly has sworn by the Bible and the persecution/defense somehow brings up the issue of whether she is a Christian or believes in the Bible, it will be easy to discredit her testimony, at least in the eyes of the jury (but also depending on the nature of the case).
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I have a PDF of the 2008 ARIS survey and can quote some figures from it.
Here are 2008 religious identification figures. I underlined 'identification', since as Fraggle notes, that isn't the same thing as belief. There are religious believers who aren't associated with any church, while many people who don't have belief still claim some religious affiliation, typically for ethnic reasons. Religious identification isn't the same thing as religious participation either. Many people who identify with a church never actually show up there except for funerals and weddings.
When American adults were asked in 2008 what religious group they identified with, here's how ARIS classified the responses:
Catholic 57,199,000 25.1%
Baptist 36,148,000 15.8%
Nones/No Religion 34,169,000 15.0%
'Christian' Generic 32,441,000 14.2%
'Mainline' Christian 29,375,000 12.9%
Dont Know/Refused 11,815,000 5.2%
Pentecostal/Charismatic 7,948,000 3.5%
Protestant 'Denominations' 7,131,000 3.1%
Mormon/LDS 3,158,000 1.4%
New Religious Movements and Other 2,804,000 1.2%
Jewish 2,680,000 1.2%
Eastern Religions 1,961,000 0.9%
Muslim 1,349,000 0.6%
My comments:
The Catholic percentage of the American population is rising, largely because of immigration (legal or otherwise) from Latin America. Many of the European-descended Catholics (Irish and Italian, etc.) are only nominally Catholic.
The Baptists, just by their nature (emphasizing adult baptism), are the prototypical 'born agains'.
The 'Christian' Generic category are those people who told the pollsters that they were 'Christians', but didn't state a particular organized church. Some of these people may be fundies who belong to independent store-front congregations. But my feeling is that the bulk of them are nominal Christians who never attend church, can't even think of a group that they identify with, but still vaguely identify with the Christian tradition in general.
'Mainline Christian' refers to the Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, along with the Methodists. This group generally are the northern European state churches and in the US they represent the old-stock English, Scottish, German and Scandinavian settlers. This group is typically more upscale and better educated than the average American. These 'mainline' groups produce a great deal of the more liberal theological scholarship (Biblical criticism etc.) and much of their membership are unconventional or nominal believers who attend for social reasons. As a result, these groups are slowly shrinking as they experience attrition at both ends, with many nominal members drifting over to the 'none's' while the more theologically conservative believers defect to the more Biblical Baptists.
The Protestant 'Denominations' are the Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, along with many smaller denominations of the same sort.
The Mormon/LDS category is holding steady at about 1.4% of the US population. Mormons have larger families than average, but this is a church that originated here in America and isn't being strengthened by immigration.
The number of people volunteering 'Jewish' is twice as large (more than 5 million) if poll-takers ask about ethnicity rather than religious identification. Which implies that perhaps half of America's self-identified ethnic Jews don't think of Judaism as their religion.
The 5.2% who refused to answer or said 'don't know' represent a large group. It's interesting to speculate what these people are really thinking. Many of those who refused to paticipate may have conventional affiliations but just didn't want to be bothered by the poll. But 'don't know'? That suggests a pretty low level of religious identification to me. So many of these people probably belong among the 'nones'.
The 'New Religious Movements and Other category' is surprisingly big too, at 2.8 million people. This one includes the many varieties of 'New Age' spirituality, 'Wicca' and similar things. It's very visible here in California.
The largest component of Eastern Religions are the Buddhists, at 1,189,000 0.5%. Interestingly, the Eastern Religions group is the best-educated in the United States, at 59% college graduates.
Here are 2008 religious identification figures. I underlined 'identification', since as Fraggle notes, that isn't the same thing as belief. There are religious believers who aren't associated with any church, while many people who don't have belief still claim some religious affiliation, typically for ethnic reasons. Religious identification isn't the same thing as religious participation either. Many people who identify with a church never actually show up there except for funerals and weddings.
When American adults were asked in 2008 what religious group they identified with, here's how ARIS classified the responses:
Catholic 57,199,000 25.1%
Baptist 36,148,000 15.8%
Nones/No Religion 34,169,000 15.0%
'Christian' Generic 32,441,000 14.2%
'Mainline' Christian 29,375,000 12.9%
Dont Know/Refused 11,815,000 5.2%
Pentecostal/Charismatic 7,948,000 3.5%
Protestant 'Denominations' 7,131,000 3.1%
Mormon/LDS 3,158,000 1.4%
New Religious Movements and Other 2,804,000 1.2%
Jewish 2,680,000 1.2%
Eastern Religions 1,961,000 0.9%
Muslim 1,349,000 0.6%
My comments:
The Catholic percentage of the American population is rising, largely because of immigration (legal or otherwise) from Latin America. Many of the European-descended Catholics (Irish and Italian, etc.) are only nominally Catholic.
The Baptists, just by their nature (emphasizing adult baptism), are the prototypical 'born agains'.
The 'Christian' Generic category are those people who told the pollsters that they were 'Christians', but didn't state a particular organized church. Some of these people may be fundies who belong to independent store-front congregations. But my feeling is that the bulk of them are nominal Christians who never attend church, can't even think of a group that they identify with, but still vaguely identify with the Christian tradition in general.
'Mainline Christian' refers to the Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, along with the Methodists. This group generally are the northern European state churches and in the US they represent the old-stock English, Scottish, German and Scandinavian settlers. This group is typically more upscale and better educated than the average American. These 'mainline' groups produce a great deal of the more liberal theological scholarship (Biblical criticism etc.) and much of their membership are unconventional or nominal believers who attend for social reasons. As a result, these groups are slowly shrinking as they experience attrition at both ends, with many nominal members drifting over to the 'none's' while the more theologically conservative believers defect to the more Biblical Baptists.
The Protestant 'Denominations' are the Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, along with many smaller denominations of the same sort.
The Mormon/LDS category is holding steady at about 1.4% of the US population. Mormons have larger families than average, but this is a church that originated here in America and isn't being strengthened by immigration.
The number of people volunteering 'Jewish' is twice as large (more than 5 million) if poll-takers ask about ethnicity rather than religious identification. Which implies that perhaps half of America's self-identified ethnic Jews don't think of Judaism as their religion.
The 5.2% who refused to answer or said 'don't know' represent a large group. It's interesting to speculate what these people are really thinking. Many of those who refused to paticipate may have conventional affiliations but just didn't want to be bothered by the poll. But 'don't know'? That suggests a pretty low level of religious identification to me. So many of these people probably belong among the 'nones'.
The 'New Religious Movements and Other category' is surprisingly big too, at 2.8 million people. This one includes the many varieties of 'New Age' spirituality, 'Wicca' and similar things. It's very visible here in California.
The largest component of Eastern Religions are the Buddhists, at 1,189,000 0.5%. Interestingly, the Eastern Religions group is the best-educated in the United States, at 59% college graduates.
Last edited:
Insert deity here
Registered Member
The definition of God(s) varies from religion to religion.The Christian God is described as omniscient,omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.In other words a perfect being with no flaws what-so-ever.
I find it interesting when it is said that things must have a creator, if this is so then it must also apply to God(s).By this logic it would be a never ending chain of creators. :bugeye:
The definition of God(s) varies from religion to religion.The Christian God is described as omniscient,omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.In other words a perfect being with no flaws what-so-ever.
I find it interesting when it is said that things must have a creator, if this is so then it must also apply to God(s).By this logic it would be a never ending chain of creators. :bugeye:
Interesting avatar you have, welcome to the forum. I find religions to be really annoying for a lot of reasons. One is having an unbelievable god and trying to force that concept down your throat, in some cases to the point of taking your life if you continue not to believe in some parts of the world.
You pay homage to a God? Okay out with it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to know. What God are you talking about?
Insert deity here
Registered Member
Thank you for the welcome Killjoy. The intolerance that is found at the base of most religious beliefs is what I am against.
In some places in the world that intolerance can translate into real fear which gives you a lot of reason to want to be seen as religious and when you fake it long enough, you quit worrying about not believing and you actually raise you kids to believe.
God, I'd say, is not a "being" or a thing. What "God" would then be could not be captured by language as an insect may be captured by a slide under a microscope; though one can allude, poetically.
Coincidentally, I just got finished articulating at some length my thoughts on this in response to a famous atheist-cum-agnostic, the film critic John Simon on his blog -- if you'd care to click to get from here to there.
The definition of God(s) varies from religion to religion.The Christian God is described as omniscient,omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.In other words a perfect being with no flaws what-so-ever.
I find it interesting when it is said that things must have a creator, if this is so then it must also apply to God(s).By this logic it would be a never ending chain of creators. :bugeye:
Nice use of "omnibenevolent" -- I thought I had coined that all by myself
That Christian theology you describe, however, was a theology, originally Judaeo-Christian, that had been considerably refined through a massive and rich assimilation of Graeco-Roman philosophy. That philosophy did not necessarily contradict the pneumatic theology of Israel and early Christians; though it did unfold certain inherent assumptions, some of which seem to be trans-cultural constants -- and none of which solve the problem of theodicy.
Interestingly, while we may not be inclined to agree on very many things, my own views are very much in accordance with what you've expressed in the post linked--in fact, right down to your appreciation for the vastly more sophisticated and substantive musings of the pre-Socratics and (some) neo-Platonists, especially as compared with many a contemporary Christian theologian.
While there are certainly exceptions within the Christian tradition, especially during the so-called "Dark Ages," by and large Christianity suffers with respect to it's rather dogmatic approach to hermeneutics. Of course, many of the exceptions to this were excommunicated and effectively branded as "atheists." Judaism, on the other hand, does not. I would suggest that the Midrashic tradition, including contemporary Midrash, is anything but dogmatic and has consistently exuded a strong appreciation for paradox.
Of course, I entertain a very broad notion of what ought to be considered "contemporary Midrash": I include everything from the writings of Franz Kafka, Edmond Jabes, and Ludwig Wittgenstein (post-Tractatus and not "formally" a Jew, but a Jew nonetheless) to the paintings of Mark Rothko and the compositions of Morton Feldman.
Christianity was a long process, and there are many varieties in its history. The mystic tradition is interesting in this regard -- beginning with Gregory of Nyssa (3rd century I believe), then the "Desert Fathers", then Pseudo-Dyonisius (circa 500 AD), then Eriugena, St. John of the Cross, Gregory Palamas, Jan Van Ruysbroek, Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing, Nicolas of Cusa, and many more. I'm even fascinated by the Christian Councils culminating in Chalcedon, the way they grappled with the weird legacy they inherited -- of trying to understand how God became a Man. (Whether they adequately symbolized that or not, it's still interesting.)
I don't doubt that; though I'm unfamiliar with that tradition. I only explored one medieval Jewish mystic, an obscure fellow named "Isaac of Luria" -- he had an intriguing notion of explaining the problem of evil by saying that when God first started Creation, he created a "pocket" inside Himself (since God is All, he had to create this "air pocket" inside Himself!).
Certainly you've read Meister Eckhart? For me, Eckhart represents the pinnacle of the apophatic tradition.
Of the ones you mentioned, I find Pseudo-Dyonysius the least satisfying--I feel that the Platonic influence in his writing is perhaps too strong, and consequently there is less a speculative quality, and more assertiveness suggesting a sense of certitude. While certainly to a far lesser degree than many a "mainstream" figure, there is something in that I believe is partly accountable for the tendencies of many towards reification, and consequent literalist readings.
A much later figure, Angelus Silesius (Johannes Scheffler?), follows very much in the footsteps of Eckhart--though I believe he claims to have been most influenced by Jakob Boehme. His most interesting work is the poem, "The Rose is Without Why," of which Heidegger presented an extended treatment in Der Satz vom Grund (the English translation is titled The Principle of Reason, oddly enough). It has qualities of The Book of Job, albeit somewhat more, uh, upbeat.
Maimonides is fantastic, though many of the best Jewish writers were partly anonymous: in Midrashic and Talmudic texts they often identify themselves simply as Reb So-and-so, and more often than not these names are pseudonyms.
That notion--the "pocket" inside Himself--strikes me as rather Eckhartian, which is not all that surprising as Eckhart was far more informed by Jewish traditions than many in his day.
I am proud of you Frag. Swearing to Mithra is not exactly going with the flow you know . Oh to kill the bull.
Last edited:
I'm ok with swearing to Mithra, for the Zend Avesta (chapter 11, IIRC, which is devoted entirely to dogs) states: "The world exists [note: "comes into being" is actually a better rendering] through the understanding of dogs." Although I'm more inclined to Martu: the "god" (for want of a better term) of the Amorites, though more particularly,the "god" of incessant wandering.
I just learned a new Jewish ritual today so strange . Me wife got it from our Daughter . She got it from an old Jewish woman in the Seattle area . She told her to alway keep 18 cents on you for good luck . I thought that odd . Then Me wife says " I don't no why I do it but I do and she whipped out this electrical tape that had 18 cents taped up in it that she keeps in her purse . Then she said it has to be 1 dime a nickle and 3 pennies . Dw you getting this ? Do you see a parallel notion going on in this superstition . The 5/3 .
Me wife's favorite expression has become O.M.G. While she runs around with her 18 cents . She also has a St. Micheal medallion around her neck she got at a church in Hawaii. The Church were Father Damian cured leprosy. He was given Sainthood a couple years back by the Catholic church . You got to do a miracle to gain Sainthood . I guess curing Leprosy counts as a miracle .
She don't believe in God thou . She knows it is man made because of the sexist slant on the whole matter . Man Made it or Woman would not be a 2nd. class citizen . Pretty good reasoning . So how hard is it to build a Great House . Don't know ? still being built . I thank you all . There's a birdy in your heart . Let it grow . My closed eyes .
Is it just Me ?
Me wife's favorite expression has become O.M.G. While she runs around with her 18 cents . She also has a St. Micheal medallion around her neck she got at a church in Hawaii. The Church were Father Damian cured leprosy. He was given Sainthood a couple years back by the Catholic church . You got to do a miracle to gain Sainthood . I guess curing Leprosy counts as a miracle .
She don't believe in God thou . She knows it is man made because of the sexist slant on the whole matter . Man Made it or Woman would not be a 2nd. class citizen . Pretty good reasoning . So how hard is it to build a Great House . Don't know ? still being built . I thank you all . There's a birdy in your heart . Let it grow . My closed eyes .
Is it just Me ?