Discussion: which religion most likely to produce Atheists?

Post Reply New Topic

First off, atheists don't dislike other humans. We may think you're ridiculous, but we don't dislike you. Western religions, on the other hand, tend to spawn some serious hate groups and terrorist groups. Second off, someone who gets mad at their god and stops actively worshipping becomes a non-practicing member of their religion with a chip on their shoulder, not an atheist. In order to be angry at your god, you must still hold some belief in him/her/it.

I would say Scientology if it weren't trying to trap people and use litigation to assert control over their subjects.

For Atheists who were previously Christians, that is sometimes one of the phases they go through prior to rejecting God.

Dogma's typically very unhealthy. In that sense even within denominations of each religion - some religious leaders can make it very pragmatic, very well matched to reality, and they close the gap on the cognitive dissonance by likely having a more 'correct' read. The more superficial, the more dogmatic, and especially the more its simply a bunch of people going through motions and engaging neither their mind, emotions, or spirit, the more likely it is that many parishioners will feel the whole thing is a sham.

As far as coercion is concerned though - little needs to be said there. It's quite obvious and negative at the same time.

Atheism is not affirmative or substantial. It is the absence of a certain belief. Atheism is a type of renunciation so it cannot be embraced. The notion that the Cosmos of which we can see 13.5 billion light years in every direction was made by a humanoid being is patently ridiculous. I do not believe that for an instant.

ruveyn

Obviously a few minor adjustments have to be made. God could not maneuver in space without His high powered anal atomic rocket power and tentacles of various dimensions from the sub-atomic to the super galactic since these are basic working tools. Neither heart nor lungs are necessary in an atomic powered creature and of course there is the minor matter of size to be able to push stars around like ping pong balls. Aside from these negligible differences, there might be a case.

Yes. A poor case.

ruveyn

That's a rather neat quote you fabricated for me.

Religious Spectrum topic

I think there is a tendency for many people to believe in something and congregate with others in a place where others have similar/closely related beliefs. I was like this once, but changed to something akin to what Keet mentioned. Then I met my (now ex) husband and we could not decide on a common religion so I abandoned what I was doing, and over time decided any organized religion was not right for me.

In my childhood, my mother was one of those "angry at god" types mentioned by Keet. I grew up hearing her scream against God as to why he would take her father "so young" (he was 58 when he died). My own father was an alcoholic and Sundays were spent sloshed so I never grews up in a religious enviornment. As I got older, I found little use for religion, and saw the state of the world where differences in religion sparked dissent and wars. I liked the pomp and ceremony of relgious expression rather than the substance, so fundamentalism never appealed to me.

In a way, if religious belief is a spectrum ranging from nothing to zealousness, I am at the nothing end, and this is my choice.

I don't really think that it's realistically possible to ask this question and include this clause, at least from the perspective of the real world. In the ideal situation that you've laid out religion would have to be an entirely personal matter, where one's individual opinion mattered, and a person's gender/race/family/social class/etc didn't play a role. However for many cultures and faiths worldwide, one's own religion (and individuality) is not exactly the kind of 'personal choice' that it is the Western World, which itself is kind of streching the meaning of personal coice, as even in this part of the world we all are highly influenced by our parents and social backgrounds with regards to religion.

Religion in most Middle East and Asian cultures is far more of a social cohesion; your own opinion as a person really doesn't matter if you're from that part of the world. It's important to note as well that this level of cohesion is often ingrained into the spiritual core of many of these religions (especially Islam and some Hindu sects).

So in a way, it's hard to give a realistic answer this question, because the very nature of it has a slight western bias. However, if the highly westernized scenario that you described existed, I would suspect that Islam in particular, along with the fundamentalist sects from most other faiths, would have a very hard time competing against more 'open minded' and flexible faiths. Although, its probably also worth noting that this assumption is based on the notion that people would actually think about and put rationalization into their religious life, something that is noticeably absent in most people in the real world.

Would a low level of deconversion suggest a proximity to a colorless green idea that sleeps furiously?

I don't think proximity to any "universal truth" (which you left undefined) necessarily follows from a relatively lower rate of deconversion. To me, it seems much more plausible that a religion with a lower rate of deconversion is just psychologically more comforting to more of its adherents or requires less effort on their part. Alternatively, it could instill more of an internal sense of guilt about deconverting.

I think religions in general turn people into atheists and bitter non-believers. No offense to atheists though. But I've noticed that people who have religion forced onto them as kids are more likely to reject it. But that isn't always the case. I had Judaism forced onto me throughout my youth. I never quite believed in the religion but in more recent years I've grown very cynical of it and opposed to Zionism. Not to say that I support the Muslims or Christians either. I think that parents need top keep their beliefs to themselves and let their children find their own ways. That's gotta be the best policy.

There's a problem with NOT teaching one's religion to children, though. In Christianity, for example, the Bible teaches that parents SHOULD train their children in the faith. Children, in fact, are a very important factor into passing along traditions and faith. Interestingly, atheists here seem to be adamant about parents staying out of a child's religious life. Since atheists reject the existence of anything beyond a naturalistic/materialistic world, they are, in essence, passing on a belief in nothing (spiritually speaking). This means that they are tacitly doing the very thing they are advising against.

But there's another side to the coin. Even if an atheist parent is adamant about teaching atheism to children, there is the same risk that the child will eventually reject atheism as with a child raised Christian to reject Christianity. Perhaps there is no better example than William J. Murray.

It stands to reason, though, that children are the best way to perpetuate some kind of system of belief, whether theism or atheism. It is known, for example, that Islam is one of the fastest growing world religions, and it is in good part due to whole-family indoctrination to the faith. They aren't just winning that many more converts--they're just having more children. Raise a child as an atheist and very likely he will be an atheist. But to remain totally neutral on the subject of religion? You run the same risk as Christian parents with a more ecumenical approach. The child MIGHT become a Christian, but then the child MIGHT be agnostic or choose a different religion (I would think more likely agnostic).

And there are worse things than risking a child born to atheist parents actually growing up to believing in God. Without ANY spiritual guidance whatsoever, there is a rare chance that a child may be drawn into dangerous pseudo-Christian or neo-pagan cults and quasi-spiritual role-playing games that promote and encourage dangerous (even deadly) behavior. The problem here is that by teaching children what to avoid, one "accidentally" promotes a set of beliefs. The only alternatives you have are to hope and pray (if you are so inclined) that your kids grow up to know the difference.

Well, dunno if that counts, but i have read that a few religions from Asia pretty much give you a lot of leeway in your religious practice, mostly buddhism or shinto (and yes i'm biaised, i'm doing a paper on Shintoism >< ). Speaking of which it's rather complicated to analyse their rituals based on our standards of religion, since everyone can be shintoist (yup, even americans, if they oh-so-want to) so the communitas aspect is hard to spot. Unless maybe you could talk about going from "impure" to "pure", i doubt the concept of liminality applies to their rituals. =.= Anyways, i'm kind of at a loss but i gave a shot at your question. Oh yeah, i also read that their priests can work as salarymen in companies as well.

I would say science, but calling science a religion is a whole other debate.

The runner up for me would be Wicca. I only have a few experiences with Wiccans, but those experiences are enough to make me list them. As I understand it, Wiccans do their religious ceremonies in the nude. Every single time I have met Wiccans the head priest or whatever they call him is invariably a fat upper middle aged man, and most of the followers are attractive young women. I found it very hard at times not to make a disparaging comment. I figure that when those ladies catch on they might be disgusted and turn to the atheism route.

On this point i would say not necessarily.

The truth is the truth, period. Whether or not whatever the truth is would or wouldn't suggest a low level of deconversion the truth remains the truth.

Admittedly I have not read through the posts, but the obvious answer to your questio n Fuzzy, is a religion that encourages rational thought. So probably the answer is none.


BTW I am surprised that you biblical literalists gave not yet posted regarding Noahs Ark, is the story too far fetched even for you, or is this obviously a fake cos the real one has already been found.