Survey Reveals Growing Ranks of "No Religion" Population

[FrankRep]

Survey Reveals Growing Ranks of "No Religion" Population (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1937-survey-reveals-growing-ranks-of-qno-religionq-population)


James Heiser | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
22 September 2009


The most recent in a series of surveys of American Religious Identification conducted by Trinity College reveals that the number of Americans with no religious identification continues to climb.

The USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-22-no-religion_N.htm) reports:



Americans who don't identify with any religion are now 15% of the USA, but trends in a new study shows they could one day surpass the nation's largest denominations — including Catholics, now 24% of the nation.

American Nones: Profile of the No Religion Population, to be released today by Trinity College, finds this faith-free group already includes nearly 19% of U.S. men and 12% of women. Of these, 35% say they were Catholic at age 12.


Not surprisingly, the disproportionate defection of American Catholics to the category of “Nones” was particularly highlighted by the Catholic News Agency (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17171):



About half came from a family where both parents identified with the same religion, while 17 percent came from a family where neither parent did so. Only 32 percent of current Nones said they had no religion at age 12, meaning that about two-thirds were raised with a religion.

Around 24 percent of Nones identified as Catholic at age 12, compared to 26 percent of the general population, the report says. However, former Catholics make up 35 percent of new Nones, the largest single group.


Previous surveys of American Religious Identification were conducted in 1990 and 2001. The sample size (54,461 respondents in the latest survey) provides a much more statistically significant data than is utilized in most polls. But the simple truth is that the accuracy of the survey could easily be verified by a visit to almost any church in America on a Sunday morning. In most circumstances, Christians are conscious every week of the decline in religious identification. As the decision to “stay home” on Sunday carries less and less social stigma, fewer people feel any social pressure to go through the motions of attending church services.

The growth of impersonal, often entertainment-oriented mega-churches are actually a sign of the sickness of churches in America, not a sign of renewed vitality — let alone a model for future growth. The lack of spiritual accountability taken for granted in such mass assemblies, as well as the lack of depth of the teaching (and the inability of those who attend such churches to recognize the vacuity of what is being served up on Sundays) and the “consumer” orientation of every decision from style of service to the structure of the facilities to the non-worship programs offered by mega-churches make it clear that many of the concerns driving such assemblies are far removed from those of historic Christianity.

It is not that Americans are suddenly becoming atheists; rather, the percentage of atheists among the “Nones” has remained essentially constant. Rather, in the words of lead researcher Barry Kosmin, "They're a stew of agnostics, deists and rationalists. They sound more like Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine. Their very interesting enlightenment approach is like the Founding Fathers' kind: Skeptical about organized religion and clerics while still holding to an idea of God." Of course, it could be observed that the abysmal lack of morals taken for granted in modern society would have made an “Enlightenment”-era deist blush.

One slightly less bleak fact revealed by the study (http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/) is that “the 1990s was the decade when the ‘secular boom’ occurred — each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year.” One would like to think that the events of recent years might have cooled the allure of the altar of Mammon to some degree, but researchers have been fooled before in this regard, as anyone who remembers the boomlet of religious observance post-9/11 can easily attest.

The fundamental problem of religious identification is that post-modern Americans have a very shallow understanding of the significance of mutually exclusive-truth claims and thus make up their own choplogic religious views and affirm that it is their sovereign right to assent to the Humpty Dumpty hermeneutic set forth in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass (http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-06.html):



"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."


Affirming their mastery, the growing ranks of the Nones have decided to find their own path — a path that usually leads to the pool of Narcissus.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1937-survey-reveals-growing-ranks-of-qno-religionq-population

[Icymudpuppy]

Hey, that's me. I quit catholicism at age 12. For a while considered myself an Atheist, and eventually settled on a more esoteric understanding about halfway between Mahayana Buddhism and Jedi, with a healthy respect for the original teachings of Jesus/Yeshua, but pretty scornful of Saul/Paul.

[Deborah K]

This is all due to indoctrination of secular humanism in public schools.

[Icymudpuppy]

I disagree. It was the birth of my own ability to use reason and logic and see the inconsistencies in what was taught at my church.

[Deborah K]

I disagree. It was the birth of my own ability to use reason and logic and see the inconsistencies in what was taught at my church.

Which were what?

[ClayTrainor]

This is all due to indoctrination of secular humanism in public schools.

:rolleyes:

[Deborah K]

:rolleyes:

hehe, I thought you'd like that Clay. :D

[ClayTrainor]

hehe, I thought you'd like that Clay. :D

:p

I'm all faces in this thread.

[Deborah K]

The fact of the matter is that secular humanism has permeated our society and it started by design in our school system. It came into full force in the 1960s. It's all documented in the fine book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".

[ClayTrainor]

The fact of the matter is that secular humanism has permeated our society and it started by design in our school system. It came into full force in the 1960s. It's all documented in the fine book "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".

I hear ya, and i know you have a good point.

I'm totally against government and public schools, but not against the concept of "no religion", as a reasonable and moral way of life. :)

[Original_Intent]

I think the trend is more towards Nihilism than Narcissism. Or maybe the OP really meant Narcissism, and was being the master of his vocabulary... :D

[Icymudpuppy]

Which were what?

There are hundreds. I have not the time to go into each one. Just Google "Biblical Inconsistencies" and you'll keep yourself busy for days.

[PaulaGem]

There are hundreds. I have not the time to go into each one. Just Google "Biblical Inconsistencies" and you'll keep yourself busy for days.

I now refer to myself as a gnostic Christian, and I got there through Bible Study and Prayer, just like the church told me to do.

Now I have to either accept that God is simply the Loving Father that Yeshua taught about and that when I prayed for "bread" (the Truth) God gave me what I asked for. Otherwise I have to deceive myself concerning actual historical events and believe in a God that only gives "bread" to those who belong to the right church, which would make Yeshua a liar, which leaves me with nothing to believe in at all.

Focusing on the simple Gospel as taught by Yeshua is much easier than the mental gymnastics you have to perform to belong to the "orthodox" club.

[angelatc]

This is all due to indoctrination of secular humanism in public schools.

Absolutely. It's discouraging to see how many of the young, free thinkers in our ranks have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.

[sevin]

Maybe the reason is because people are finally starting to recognize that science is a good thing.


This is all due to indoctrination of secular humanism in public schools.

Yeah. If only they had spent more time being indoctrinated in church. :rolleyes:

[PaulaGem]

Absolutely. It's discouraging to see how many of the young, free thinkers in our ranks have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.

If God was a real and present force in the lives of those around them, it wouldn't matter if "secular humanism" was taught in schools.

Religion is taught - God is experienced.

[PaulaGem]

Maybe the reason is because people are finally starting to recognize that science is a good thing.



Yeah. If only they had spent more time being indoctrinated in church.

Government and Science have to be defined by temporal principles. The metaphysical is highly subjective, each person experiences God through the filter of their own needs and goals. Laws and scientific theory can not be based on the metaphysical, that's just common sense.

[sevin]

The metaphysical is highly subjective, each person experiences feelings through the filter of their own needs and goals. Laws and scientific theory can not be based on feelings, that's just common sense.

Fixed that for ya. ;)

[angelatc]

If God was a real and present force in the lives of those around them, it wouldn't matter if "secular humanism" was taught in schools.

Religion is taught - God is experienced.

I think you underestimate how weak the human soul actually is, especially in the young who are surrounded with messages of instant gratification and shallow, single-minded thought more than any other time in history.

Teaching only biological science serves to dehumanize us - turns us into nothing, really.

Learning political science makes it clear that the bigger the government, the smaller the church.

Kids spend 9 hours a day in school, 3 hours a day with their parents, and 1 hour a week (maybe) in church. Unless you're willing to turn into an absolute fundamentalist, you don't stand a chance of developing a child who can think outside the confines of the physical world.

I'm not even religious, but I can see quite clearly that the hysteria over creationism is too irrational to be anything except dangerous.

[TGGRV]

YouTube - Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0)
YouTube - Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM)
[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ]YouTube - Proof of Evolution - Part 4 Embryology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw)

indoctrination = teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
As you see in those videos, evolution, for example, it is accepted CRITICALLY. The only people who get into circular arguments and just use a book with no proof to justify themselves are religious people and this is why religion has no place in schools and just in the church.

YouTube - Why Teaching Creationism is a Horrible Idea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYphna9UTCk)


Here are my questions for religious people.
1. Would you be able to enjoy Heaven knowing that people you love are tormented in Hell?

2. . How come so many times the all-knowing God doesn't seem to have a clue whats gonna happen and has to double check things?

3. How do you justify God punishing Adam and Eve for something the did before having any knowledge about good and evil?

4. What will happen in the Afterlife to the people who never heard about your religion?

5. How do you justify an infinite punishment for a finite crime? Especially from a loving God.

6. How can you have free will if God is omniscient? This means that he knows the decisions you will make, hence you don't really have free will.

7. How come you consider people to have free will considering some decisions lead to eternal torture? It's like saying you have the right to free speech, but if you say X, you will get your hand cut off. Sure, you have the right to free speech, right?

Actually if religion would be subject to the same proof standard as science, it would have been proven as false hence the Sun was "created" before the Earth and the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

[Pennsylvania]

3. How do you justify God punishing Adam and Eve for something the did before having any knowledge about good and evil?

In other words, this reduces to the tautology: "man sins because he sins".

[TGGRV]

Another question. If everything was created in present form, why do humans still have the genes to make tails, whales the genes to make legs and chicken the genes to make teeth? It's illogical. And the same design bullshit doesn't work, why don't humans have the genes to make feathers then? Well, aside from the point that animals with feathers are on another branch of the tree of life - which is evolution. :P

If everything was created in present form, why don't we find humans in the same geological strata(not relative depth btw) with dinosaurs?

If everything was created as they are now, why are there LOTS of transitional fossils?

Why aren't no peer reviewed scientific studies that prove evolution wrong and creationism right? Such a scientist would win Nobel prizes, notoriety... lol

[PaulaGem]

Originally Posted by PaulaGem View Post
The metaphysical is highly subjective, each person experiences GOD (your "fix" feelings )through the filter of their own needs and goals. Laws and scientific theory can not be based on feelings, that's just common sense.


Fixed that for ya. ;)

If I don't presume to tell you what you experience what gives you the right to tell me what I experience?

I have on several occasions gotten information through metaphysical channels that was correct and there was no other way I could have obtained that information.

These specific personal metaphysical experiences are sufficient proof for me of the existence One that answers prayer and seeks to guide me. I believe this is an experience that is equally available to all men.

Just because you have not experienced this personally gives you no right to correct or doubt my experience.

[angelatc]

indoctrination = teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
As you see in those videos, evolution, for example, it is accepted CRITICALLY. The only people who get into circular arguments and just use a book with no proof to justify themselves are religious people and this is why religion has no place in schools and just in the church.





I'm not even religious, but I can see quite clearly that the hysteria over creationism is too irrational to be anything except dangerous
...

So, only the majority have rights in the schools. Nice dogma!

[PaulaGem]

I think you underestimate how weak the human soul actually is, especially in the young who are surrounded with messages of instant gratification and shallow, single-minded thought more than any other time in history.


If their parents had a strong Spiritual presence this would not matter. What you are saying is not that the soul is weak, but that God can't make his presence known without Bibles in schools.



Teaching only biological science serves to dehumanize us - turns us into nothing, really.

Sorry, in science class you teach science - period.


Learning political science makes it clear that the bigger the government, the smaller the church.

The church is just another political unit. The church is losing political power to another political unit - big deal.


Kids spend 9 hours a day in school, 3 hours a day with their parents, and 1 hour a week (maybe) in church. Unless you're willing to turn into an absolute fundamentalist, you don't stand a chance of developing a child who can think outside the confines of the physical world.

I'm not even religious, but I can see quite clearly that the hysteria over creationism is too irrational to be anything except dangerous.

Children get their sustenance from their parents. The influence of parents in children's lives is so strong that abused children usually won't "rat out" their parents, but they defend them in spite of prolonged abuse.

Three hours a day with parents seems like an underestimate, and you aren't allowing for weekends, but even so - I believe parents with a real Spiritual life will raise children who are open to the metaphysical.

I think this problem is the same as many others in our world - parents think going to church will fix the kids, but they have to get their own Spiritual house in order and walk the walk themselves.

[Deborah K]

Maybe the reason is because people are finally starting to recognize that science is a good thing.



Yeah. If only they had spent more time being indoctrinated in church. :rolleyes:

You are missing the point. Read "The deliberate dumbing down of America".

[Deborah K]

YouTube - Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0)
YouTube - Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM)
[/url]

indoctrination = teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
As you see in those videos, evolution, for example, it is accepted CRITICALLY. The only people who get into circular arguments and just use a book with no proof to justify themselves are religious people and this is why religion has no place in schools and just in the church.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYphna9UTCk]YouTube - Why Teaching Creationism is a Horrible Idea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw)


Here are my questions for religious people.
1. Would you be able to enjoy Heaven knowing that people you love are tormented in Hell?

2. . How come so many times the all-knowing God doesn't seem to have a clue whats gonna happen and has to double check things?

3. How do you justify God punishing Adam and Eve for something the did before having any knowledge about good and evil?

4. What will happen in the Afterlife to the people who never heard about your religion?

5. How do you justify an infinite punishment for a finite crime? Especially from a loving God.

6. How can you have free will if God is omniscient? This means that he knows the decisions you will make, hence you don't really have free will.

7. How come you consider people to have free will considering some decisions lead to eternal torture? It's like saying you have the right to free speech, but if you say X, you will get your hand cut off. Sure, you have the right to free speech, right?

Actually if religion would be subject to the same proof standard as science, it would have been proven as false hence the Sun was "created" before the Earth and the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

Your argument excludes those of us to believe that God created evolution. And bear in mind that evolution is still a theory.

Also, there are Christians who understand that we were born with free will.

[ClayTrainor]

So you believe we likely came from apes?And bear in mind that evolution is still a theory.

Just bear in mind that gravity and aerodynamic lift are still theories as well...



Also, there are Christians who understand that we were born with free will.

And i love them, so long as they respect individual rights of Man :o

[TGGRV]

PaulaGem, subject your experiences through a peer review system, prove why things are like that and I have no problem with it being taught in schools.

Schools are meant to be sources of INFORMATION, not IDEOLOGY. They are supposed to develop CRITICAL thinking, not SUPPORTING IDEAS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A BOOK. It's simple as that and this is the reason why education is failing students world wide. Teachers in non-scientific fields are more ideologues than intellectuals.

Obviously, I have no problem with schools having a certain curricula, as long as they're not public funded. I'm against public education, but as long as there's here to stay, it needs to teach, not brainwash. Why shouldn't schools teach that the Earth is flat or whatever other bullshit theory you can find, considering they're supposed to present all points of view, even those proven false? Schools are meant to teach things that are PROVEN VALID/CORRECT, so mysticism has no place in schools. It is just like expecting churches, where mysticism is taught, to teach science/evolution. It is illogical.

[PaulaGem]

PaulaGem, subject your experiences through a peer review system, prove why things are like that and I have no problem with it being taught in schools.

Schools are meant to be sources of INFORMATION, not IDEOLOGY. They are supposed to develop CRITICAL thinking, not SUPPORTING IDEAS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A BOOK. It's simple as that and this is the reason why education is failing students world wide. Teachers in non-scientific fields are more ideologues than intellectuals.

Why would I want to teach my personal metaphysical experiences and beliefs in school? I have no aspirations to guru status. If I meet someone who denies that they exist, I object to that denial. If I meet someone who is trying to figure out how they relate to God, I share what I've figured out and hope it helps them. I have no desire to go any further.



Obviously, I have no problem with schools having a certain curricula, as long as they're not public funded. I'm against public education, but as long as there's here to stay, it needs to teach, not brainwash. Why shouldn't schools teach that the Earth is flat or whatever other bullshit theory you can find, considering they're supposed to present all points of view, even those proven false? Schools are meant to teach things that are PROVEN VALID/CORRECT, so mysticism has no place in schools. It is just like expecting churches, where mysticism is taught, to teach science/evolution. It is illogical.

I do believe that a course on comparative religions is not a bad thing. Religions are actually political and cultural entities. The mysticism part can not be taught, it may be modeled by another person and someone can learn from that model (Yeshua, Ghandi, Buddha, etc) but it can not be taught. Religionists themselves resort to myth and allegory when they try to teach the mystical because that is as close as they can get.

[angelatc]

I'm against public education, but as long as there's here to stay, it needs to teach, not brainwash.

It's a very fine line, you know.

Not giving a valedictorian a diploma because she thanks Jesus in her speech......that'll teach her.

[angelatc]

If their parents had a strong Spiritual presence this would not matter. What you are saying is not that the soul is weak, but that God can't make his presence known without Bibles in schools. No, I would never presume to speak for God, or even on the subject of what He can and can't do'




Sorry, in science class you teach science - period. Peachy, but where are the theology classes? It's ridiculous to teach the history of civilization without addressing religion, but that's exactly what the anti-religion sect demands.




Children get their sustenance from their parents. The influence of parents in children's lives is so strong that abused children usually won't "rat out" their parents, but they defend them in spite of prolonged abuse.

You're making my point. It's practically impossible to raise a child to have any spirituality in the environment the intolerant left has created. Unless you decide to become a zealot, possibly to the point of totally isolating your kid from society as a whole, a casual relationship with the church won't stand up to the onslaught of intolerence that the left has insisted is necessary, apparently in order to advance their agenda.




Three hours a day with parents seems like an underestimate, and you aren't allowing for weekends, but even so - I believe parents with a real Spiritual life will raise children who are open to the metaphysical.


Allowing a government and a society that is aggressively creating an atmosphere of intolerence for religion on public property to have your kids for 8 hours a day just doesn't serve the public good.

Look at these boards. The evolution crowd apparently can't sleep at night knowing there are religious people in the world. It eats them alive from the inside out. It's not something I ever encountered as a child - there were lots of atheists and agnostics, but they were never as aggressive and hostile as they are today.

In my life, I've known 3 people who were scientists. Professionals, with advanced college degrees, earning very high incomes wearing white lab coats in either academia or the corporate world . None of them were athiests. All of them went to church on Sunday. For that reason, I'm skeptical of the argument that the world of science simply can't tolerate religion, Christianity in particular.

Again, I'm not religious, but I think the aggressive push for secularity in favor of atheism is overblown at best, and pure evil at worst.

[TGGRV]

It's a very fine line, you know.

Not giving a valedictorian a diploma because she thanks Jesus in her speech......that'll teach her.
Actually I think that is moronic. There's a difference in between having a personal opinion and being free to believe in whatever you want and ideology taught as information in schools. She could have thanked cocaine abuse and gang bangs and I wouldn't have cared.

And secular things aren't bad. Religion has no place in government or policy, in the way that religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with neither.

Paula, there's a difference in between teaching comparative religion and teach the historical aspects of it, political and cultural implications of religion and so on because these are facts. And you can't teach political and cultural implications without relating to, for example, in the case of Islam the Hadith and Sirah and keep preaching that Islam is peace. Or you can't teach Christianity without teaching the implications of the Old Testament or the usage of religion as a judicial entity. There's a HUGE difference in between teaching this, and teaching that the world was created by a God and teach things that fly against all the information people have and pass it as knowledge and wisdom.

Oh, and I have no problem with agnostics. For example, even though I don't believe in God, I can't claim that God doesn't exist since there's no proof in either way. There's proof that evolution is true and this implies that everything against it is false. God may have created life through evolution. I can't claim that this can be false, but I can't believe in a deceiving God(among cruel, unjust and illogical) that would create everything like it is today and alter the DNA of species, the way they develop in-utero etc and scramble things under the surface of the Earth to bias the fossil record in order to induce people into error. lol.

[Deborah K]

Actually I think that is moronic. There's a difference in between having a personal opinion and being free to believe in whatever you want and ideology taught as information in schools. She could have thanked cocaine abuse and gang bangs and I wouldn't have cared.

And secular things aren't bad. Religion has no place in government or policy, in the way that religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with neither.
Paula, there's a difference in between teaching comparative religion and teach the historical aspects of it, political and cultural implications of religion and so on because these are facts. And you can't teach political and cultural implications without relating to, for example, in the case of Islam the Hadith and Sirah and keep preaching that Islam is peace. Or you can't teach Christianity without teaching the implications of the Old Testament or the usage of religion as a judicial entity. There's a HUGE difference in between teaching this, and teaching that the world was created by a God and teach things that fly against all the information people have and pass it as knowledge and wisdom.

Oh, and I have no problem with agnostics. For example, even though I don't believe in God, I can't claim that God doesn't exist since there's no proof in either way. There's proof that evolution is true and this implies that everything against it is false. God may have created life through evolution. I can't claim that this can be false, but I can't believe in a deceiving God(among cruel, unjust and illogical) that would create everything like it is today and alter the DNA of species, the way they develop in-utero etc and scramble things under the surface of the Earth to bias the fossil record in order to induce people into error. lol.

Yes, but you see, that's not how this country was founded. We were founded on religious principles. I would argue that since we have succumbed to the agenda of the progressives, which includes secular humanism, it has become our downfall and will result in our demise.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually I think that is moronic. There's a difference in between having a personal opinion and being free to believe in whatever you want and ideology taught as information in schools. She could have thanked cocaine abuse and gang bangs and I wouldn't have cared.

And secular things aren't bad. Religion has no place in government or policy, in the way that religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with neither.

Paula, there's a difference in between teaching comparative religion and teach the historical aspects of it, political and cultural implications of religion and so on because these are facts. And you can't teach political and cultural implications without relating to, for example, in the case of Islam the Hadith and Sirah and keep preaching that Islam is peace. Or you can't teach Christianity without teaching the implications of the Old Testament or the usage of religion as a judicial entity. There's a HUGE difference in between teaching this, and teaching that the world was created by a God and teach things that fly against all the information people have and pass it as knowledge and wisdom.

Oh, and I have no problem with agnostics. For example, even though I don't believe in God, I can't claim that God doesn't exist since there's no proof in either way. There's proof that evolution is true and this implies that everything against it is false. God may have created life through evolution. I can't claim that this can be false, but I can't believe in a deceiving God(among cruel, unjust and illogical) that would create everything like it is today and alter the DNA of species, the way they develop in-utero etc and scramble things under the surface of the Earth to bias the fossil record in order to induce people into error. lol.

There's no objective proof of evolution (it has not been observed). The evidence is purely speculative for now. (fossils, DNA, etc. are interesting, but the crucial steps of the scientific method, "observation" and "objective testing" are still not there yet) It remains an interesting proposition, but it's still just theory for the time being. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, but you see, that's not how this country was founded. We were founded on religious principles. I would argue that since we have succumbed to the agenda of the progressives, which includes secular humanism, it has become our downfall and will result in our demise.

I would argue that the founding principles are not religious, but they are existential and not "humanist". JMHO.

[Dr.3D]

Just bear in mind that gravity and aerodynamic lift are still theories as well...


And it falls flat when it comes to the Bumble Bee. They forget that the positive pressure below the wing has a play in the way a wing works. The theory tends to concentrate on the negative pressure over the wing.

They tend to forget there is greater pressure under the wing than there is in the ambient atmospheric pressure surrounding the bee.

[Deborah K]

I would argue that the founding principles are not religious, but they are existential and not "humanist". JMHO.

There was a study done by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts.

[georgiaboy]

interesting, D.

[ClayTrainor]

I would argue that the founding principles are not religious, but they are existential and not "humanist". JMHO.

+1

The principles of individual liberty are independent of religion and/or supernatural philosophy, despite how rampant human and American history is, with it.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Thomas Cooper, 1817

[Deborah K]

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (19 Vols., 1905)

[ClayTrainor]

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (19 Vols., 1905)

Right, God was an individual concept to Jefferson. Keep in mind, i pretty much agree with 90%+ of the Jefferson Bible. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible)


Thomas Jefferson understood that Freedom of religion was more important than any individual religion, including christianity.

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817

I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305


"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

[sevin]

Just because you have not experienced this personally gives you no right to correct or doubt my experience.

I don't doubt your experience, I just doubt its source is from god.

[PaulaGem]

Yes, but it is my private experience - you can claim no knowledge of it or its source, and you certainally have no right to change my words.

[TGGRV]

Yes, but you see, that's not how this country was founded. We were founded on religious principles. I would argue that since we have succumbed to the agenda of the progressives, which includes secular humanism, it has become our downfall and will result in our demise.
I don't see any religious principles, besides mentioning that people are created in the image of a Creator and so on. Rights are manifestations of human nature, they're not given by anyone.

Read the Old Testament and tell me how it's compatible.

heavenlyboy34, observation doesn't refer to witnessing something unfold. You have to use the terms in the way they're used by the scientific community.

to observe - detect: discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of
theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of etc

And by the way, when I talked about proof of evolution, I meant proof in the common usage. Proof, from a scientific point of view, refers only to mathematics.

[Deborah K]

I don't see any religious principles, besides mentioning that people are created in the image of a Creator and so on. Rights are manifestations of human nature, they're not given by anyone.

Read the Old Testament and tell me how it's compatible.

heavenlyboy34, observation doesn't refer to witnessing something unfold. You have to use the terms in the way they're used by the scientific community.

to observe - detect: discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of
theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of etc

And by the way, when I talked about proof of evolution, I meant proof in the common usage. Proof, from a scientific point of view, refers only to mathematics.

Post #38 would be my response. And I'm not talking about our country be founded on religious principles as if to mean established as a Christian nation. A lot of people get that mixed up. That is NOT my stance.

[Monolithic]

i wouldn't describe myself as an atheist so much as a postheist. religion was necessary when we didn't know why the sun set and the moon rose or why it rained and thundered or what those bright lights in the sky were but it belongs in a stage in human infancy.

[Deborah K]

i wouldn't describe myself as an atheist so much as a postheist. religion was necessary when we didn't know why the sun set and the moon rose or why it rained and thundered or what those bright lights in the sky were but it belongs in a stage in human infancy.

The Founders would beg to differ. And since the world has yet to be graced with such incredible minds as the ones that founded this nation, I would have to differ with you as well.

[Monolithic]

The Founders would beg to differ. And since the world has yet to be graced with such incredible minds as the ones that founded this nation, I would have to differ with you as well.

"The Founders" are not infallible. Washington and others owned slaves too you know.

[Deborah K]

"The Founders" are not infallible. Washington and others owned slaves too you know.

Yeah the old 'slaveowner' excuse. :rolleyes: Dismiss the founders and their religious beliefs out of hand because they were slaveowners. You ARE aware of course that you're being anachronistic right?

And who said anything about them being infallible?

[TGGRV]

Post #38 would be my response. And I'm not talking about our country be founded on religious principles as if to mean established as a Christian nation. A lot of people get that mixed up. That is NOT my stance.
So what you are trying to say is that some Christian values are found in the US Constitution. I agree with that stance. This doesn't mean that the country is founded on religious principles. If you read the Old Testament, the US Constitution is the complete opposite of it.

Lev 21:9 anyone? Or all kinds of passages like that?

[Monolithic]

Yeah the old 'slaveowner' excuse. :rolleyes: Dismiss the founders and their religious beliefs out of hand because they were slaveowners. You ARE aware of course that you're being anachronistic right?

And who said anything about them being infallible?

Not really no, 230 years ago many people thought slavery was ok, 230 years ago many people thought religion had all the answers.

We eventually understand that things are wrong, fix the wrongs, and move on.

[Bman]

YouTube - Atheist live in the safest states! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCwQj2-a-g)

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I use to be an atheist but I'm an agnostic now, largely because I came to the understanding that Evolution is bullshit, we have no idea how we got here.

[Deborah K]

So what you are trying to say is that some Christian values are found in the US Constitution. I agree with that stance. This doesn't mean that the country is founded on religious principles. If you read the Old Testament, the US Constitution is the complete opposite of it.

Lev 21:9 anyone? Or all kinds of passages like that?

Well first off, I distinguish the Old Testament from the New. The OT represents the old covenant. The NT - Christ in particular - ushers in the new covenant. It's all well and good to quote the Bible but it misses the point. Our founders writings were steeped in religious principles and it translated into our founding documents.

I'm not saying that you're being this way, but I don't get why people have such a tough time accepting that fact.

[Deborah K]

Not really no, 230 years ago many people thought slavery was ok, 230 years ago many people thought religion had all the answers.

We eventually understand that things are wrong, fix the wrongs, and move on.

I'm not contending that the founders believed that religion had all the answers.

[Bman]

I'm not saying that you're being this way, but I don't get why people have such a tough time accepting that fact.

Because, people try to use it to validate their religious rhetoric, and the constitution is not about any particular religion.

[Deborah K]

YouTube - Atheist live in the safest states! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGCwQj2-a-g)

Correlation does not imply causation.

[Bman]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Certainly doesn't, but it is food for thought.

[Deborah K]

Because, people try to use it to validate their religious rhetoric, and the constitution is not about any particular religion.

Anyone who says it is, is either disingenuous or misguided.

[TGGRV]

Actually it says in the NT that the OT is still valid.

[shams_alwa'ezeen]

this is good, atheists are usually more willing to learn about islam neutrally rather than paulists.

[LibertyEagle]

this is good, atheists are usually more willing to learn about islam neutrally rather than paulists.

Have a problem with Ron Paul supporters, do you?

[shams_alwa'ezeen]

Have a problem with Ron Paul supporters, do you?

no, paul from christianity.

I thought the Ron Paul derogative was paultards =)) :p

[angelatc]

Actually I think that is moronic. There's a difference in between having a personal opinion and being free to believe in whatever you want and ideology taught as information in schools. She could have thanked cocaine abuse and gang bangs and I wouldn't have cared.

But it isn't supposed to be about you, is it? This is more about how certain intolerant philosophies have changed and are continuing to change the underlying attitudes of the country.

I don't think we can make such a change to America's psyche and not expect it to have an impact on America.

How can we tell people that churches (not government) should provide charity while concurrently telling our children that churches lie, religion is a hoax and both are inherently evil?

[TGGRV]

angelatc, I don't support the anti-religion camp. I want the TRUTH to be presented. I despise idiots who bash Christianity for the Crusades, for example. No offense, it was a defensive war. And by the way, I despise atheists who say that they KNOW there's no good. You can't know that since there's no proof(heh) of it in either way.

I agree with you on this one. It is extremely stupid to deny someone a valedictorian because of her faith. It's discrimination.

And the truth is the truth. And churches don't have to do charity. When I donated money(small amounts, since my family has an income under the US poverty line lol), I did it to private charities. Churches function in the same way.