For many, faith in God rises with age

[rug]

Posted by William Harms-Chicago on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:54

U. CHICAGO (US) — Belief in God increases with age, even in countries that are largely atheist, according to new research.

International surveys about the depth of people’s belief in God show vast differences among nations, ranging from 94 percent of people in the Philippines who say they always believed in God, to only 13 percent of people in the former East Germany.

Yet the surveys found one constant—belief in God is higher among the elderly, regardless of where they live.

A new report on the international surveys, “Belief About God Across Time and Countries,” was issued by the General Social Survey of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago.

http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/even-for-atheists-faith-in-god-rises-with-age/

Here's the report:

http://news.uchicago.edu/sites/all/files/attachments/Beliefs%20about%20God%20Across%20Time%20and%20Countries.pdf

[HereSince1628]

1. Big surprise that. Existential fear demands assuaging. n/t

[rug]

3. What do you do about existential fear?

Or don't you have it?

[Warpy]

19. I can't say that I do

There are times I rather look forward to it because I need a vacation from pain and death will certainly do that.

[HereSince1628]

24. Oh, I have something like that. I don't mean to deny the reality of existential fear.

I just think large portions of a population turning to religions that assuage existential fear is quite predictable within a population that has a knowledge of that promise in religion combined with a growing intensity of fear of death or it's perceived proximity.

What I would find interesting would be the results of a study on the association between suicide rates (which are greatest among seniors, particularly senior men) and their return to religiosity. Do those who turn to religion choose life or do they choose suicide? Or, conversely...Do those who choose suicide turn to religion or not?

[Deep13]

27. Admit that the fear is well founded and move on.

No one lives forever. It's just a fact that we have to accept.

[Politicalboi]

2. "Looking for Loopholes"

W.C.Fields.

This is the end result of having religion crammed down our throats for eons. People get scared enough to believe this crap.

[abq e streeter]

4. With all due respect. I believe in some sort of "God" or creator of life and light.

And there are millions of progressives out here who believe this "crap " and have not had it "crammed down our throats". If you are an atheist, I have the utmost respect for that decision, and for your right to not have religion imposed on you. All I ask is that atheists respect my belief without being insulting or condescending, which your post most certainly is. Sadly, you are far from alone among progressives who wear their smug sense of "superiority" due to their atheism as a kind of badge. You don't know if it's "crap", and more than I know that is isn't.

[cleanhippie]

6. I do respect your RIGHT to believe whatever you want.

But the moment you espouse your beliefs, I have no duty to respect the beliefs themselves at all. Your beliefs need to EARN respect, and they do that by being corroborated by reality.

Do you understand the difference between respecting your right to believe, and respecting your beliefs?

[rug]

10. No they don't. The default position is respect not disrespect.

[cleanhippie]

14. When you start following that code, you let me know.

[rug]

60. You are confusing respect as a default position with earning disrespect.

[darkstar3]

16. False choice, not to mention

that it doesn't even touch the fact that you and your fellow defenders of the faith play fast and loose with the meaning of the word "disrespect," to the point where it is indistinguishable from "I don't like what you said."

[cbayer]

47. So, is calling someone's beliefs or lack of beliefs crap disrespect or not?

[trotsky]

51. What about calling a group of people a bunch of dumbasses?

What's worse? "That idea is crap" vs. "You are a dumbass"

[darkstar3]

56. Which beliefs?

Political...Mitt Romney's belief that "corporations are people", and his belief that he understands anything about women voters, are both crap. Was that disrespectful?

Social...The belief that racism is over in this country now that we have a black President is crap. Was that disrespectful?

Literature...The belief that Twilight is a romantic story is crap. Was that disrespectful?

I could go on, but the point here is that I've read each of those statements I made above in many places on the internet, and heard them in many conversations in real life. No one ever said that such statements were disrespectful. So why is it that all of these beliefs and so many more can be called "crap" without it being disrespectful, but religious beliefs cannot? What makes them so special? So different?

No one's belief is above reproach, regardless of how inane or profound. To claim otherwise is special pleading.

And that's crap.

[cbayer]

58. So, if I say

"people are stupid enough to believe the crap that atheists spew"

is that disrespectful? I think it is and wouldn't say it.

The difference is where we are. The TOS on this site specifically identify religious beliefs and lack of beliefs as areas to be respected.

"Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic."

They also say, "Don't make DU suck". That kind of post definitely makes DU suck and would not be tolerated were it about race, ethnic origin, gender, etc.

[darkstar3]

65. It is, but now you've moved the goalposts.

You asked if calling someone's belief "crap" was disrespectful. I maintain that it is not. Your statement, however, calls people "stupid" (which is a direct insult) and uses a derogatory term for people speaking their mind ("spew&quot . I'll admit that the second one is more a matter of distaste rather than disrespect, but the first is clearly disrespectful to a person.

We all know that calling someone stupid is an insult. If you go back and read my post above, you'll find that I didn't insult anyone.

Let me see if I can use a somewhat hyperbolic example (let's call it enraged for contrast) to make my point.

Meet John. John is a Pentecostal. John believes that God speaks to him personally, and more importantly that God sometimes speaks through people in a holy language that only those "touched by the spirit" can understand. John believes that you, too, can be "touched by the spirit" if you believe hard enough.

Meet Jane. Jane is a Southern Baptist. Jane holds no truck with those "Holy Roller Types." Jane believes that God doesn't speak through people in babble-tongue, and that such demonstrations might even be the work of the Devil himself.

Jane meets John in the lunch room at work, and as they both discuss what they did over the weekend, the topic of church comes up and they begin a discussion about religion. John tells Jane that he's been "working on" his faith for a long time, and that he is just as happy as he can be because finally, last weekend, he was "touched by the spirit." John asks Jane if she's ever been "touched by the spirit." Jane tells John, honestly, that she believes no one is really "touched by the spirit," and that if there is anything at all "real" to what John experienced that it's probably the work of the Devil.

Choose your own adventure: How should John respond?

A. "Oh that's crap!"
B. "You're an idiot if you believe that!"

This little morality play has several points.
1. A is what I posted above. B is what you posted here. Do you see a difference between them, because I certainly do. Telling someone they are wrong, even if you do so strongly or even in-artfully, is not the same as insulting someone directly.
2. More importantly, if you think both of these choices are disrespectful, then wasn't Jane disrespectful? She did, after all, imply that John had been touched by the Devil.
3. If this conversation between two Christians who disagreed contained "disrespect," then we are completely fucked in the realm of religious discussion.
4. Was the workplace really the best place to start a conversation on a subject known to be divisive?

"Disrespect" is a smokescreen. It's the secret option "C" above, where John could have said "that's disrespectful!" It shuts down the conversation completely while insulating the claimant from any criticism (right or wrong) of their belief by allowing them to claim victim status.

It's the "PLEASE STOP" from Hyperbole and a Half. The kicker paragraph in that story, of course, is the last one:

As we grew up, we learned to solve our problems through "talking" and "compromise," but I think secretly we all still yearned for the days where we only had to yell "PLEASE STOP" and anything we wanted was ours.

Also, when you and your fellow hosts ban the one with Stalin-Tourette's, we can talk about the "Don't make DU suck" rule.

[cbayer]

73. Your arguments are valid, but perhaps it is not necessary to split hairs about

what constitutes disrespect. Perhaps it comes down to simple decency.

I think it's possible to say that I don't see things the same way you do and here is why, without using pejoratives to describe either what you believe or who you are. How far is the discussion or debate going to go if I call your atheism crap? Maybe not disrespectful by your definition, but not likely to move towards any understanding.

As to how John should respond, I reject both options you have offered. Should he wish to continue the conversation, then he can further explain what he means. Should he wish to end it, then he can choose one of your options.

I think part of the problem we get into here is that some approach this discussion as a sport and are intent on winning. But there is no winning. Believers believe. Non-believers don't. Neither is right or wrong, they are just different. Too often I see things like "One for the team!!" or "Score!!" or similar things. Does that make one side or the other really more valid? I don't think so.

As to what the hosts should do, the member you are focussing on here clearly has some stiff competition for making things suck. To suggest that all would be just fine were this one person to be blocked is simply untrue, imo.

[darkstar3]

81. So rather than calling us disrespectful, you think you should call us indecent?

I have three separate things to say here:

1. If you believe my points are valid, but you want to rail against the way I made those points, that's a tone argument. It's not worth the time it takes to write it. And going from "disrespectful" to "indecent" is just sliding further down that rabbit hole.

2. You still have yet to recognize that such tone arguments are not applied to other topics of discussion that you can find on this site or in the real world. This is special pleading in one of its most easy to recognize forms, because you are trying to put religion on a separate plane from everything else. That has no place on a discussion forum where all points of view are specified as welcome in the rules. Let me put it a different way: If someone attacks your ideas, and you take it personally, you're in the wrong debate.

3. I never suggested or implied that banning one member would make everything "just fine." What I did say was that it is ridiculous to talk about the statement "Don't make DU suck" with me when there is someone here whose desperate attempts at attention-grabbing fly in the face of that idea. You have the power to do something about that, and if you won't exercise it then I maintain that you have no business whatsoever calling down others when you disagree with their tone.

[cbayer]

82. I really dislike these little pat dismissals when I am trying to make a point that I think

is valid but may be in stark contrast to someone else's (there's probably a name and a web page for that as well).

I don't know who you refer to when you use the plural "we", but I didn't call anyone indecent. I made an argument for decency to prevail when debate gets heated.

Religious beliefs and lack of beliefs are granted the same status here as race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. I'm not pleading for special treatment here, just that the terms of service be observed.

Again, there are a number of people here who exhibit desperate attempts to grab attention. I have the power to do something about all of them. Should I?

And please note how I managed to make my arguments without making it personal by telling you what you have no business doing, saying your post isn't worth the time it took to write it or telling you you are in the wrong debate. Once one makes it personal, it has slithered into the murky area of disrespect.

[darkstar3]

83. It's called basic implication. By saying that I need to practice decency, you call me indecent.

And the "we" I refer to is the group of atheists here with which you take repeated issue when they write things that you consider below the level of decency.

Religious beliefs are not the same as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. All of those things are innate, while religious belief is not. All of those things deal with who a person is, while religious belief is a an idea that a person chooses to believe in. If it is indeed true that people who criticize religion harshly are in violation of DU's terms of service, then this entire forum needs to be shut down.

As for disliking dismissals, you may have noticed that such dismissals are what I'm against here. Tone arguments are nothing but an attempt to dismiss criticism and shut down the conversation. They are pretty much nothing more than shooting the messenger. When I dismiss tone arguments, it's because I'm not willing to let the conversation be shut down by such tactics.

And now you say I'm getting personal, which is just another attempt to deflect criticism and shut down discussion. Consider this: you implied that I lacked simple decency, and did I tell you that you were getting personal and disrespectful? Of course not. As a matter of fact, there have been several posts of yours in our past conversations from which I could have easily drawn offense, and said that you were getting personal and disrespectful. I don't do that, and neither do the other atheists with whom I agree on this board. Clearly we're playing by different rules of engagement, but it seems that yours keep changing.

And that brings me to my point about the other poster...to put it bluntly I was trying to point out hypocrisy. To spend so much of your time telling atheists that they need to be more "decent" while doing nothing whatsoever about that clown strikes me as hypocritical.

And now that I'm flatly telling you that I find your actions objectionable, will you once again take it as an attack against your person?

[cbayer]

84. You could take up your argument with the administrators of the site, as they have

created the list and make no differentiation between these.

This is neither a team sport nor a high school debating team. It's a discussion board where it is assumed that there are some mutually held goals.

Frankly, I no longer spend any of my time here telling atheists much of anything, unless they are willing to engage in an honest and civil discussion about a relevant topic. I have met a whole slew of atheists here with whom I love to exchange ideas. I have learned much from them and feel that there is a great deal of mutual respect. I suspect they would say the same.

I'm not here to score points and I am not the member of any team. When you reference "we", I generally know of whom your speak, but I feel quite certain that you know that the group you reference does not represent the atheists of DU or of any group in particular. I'm not really interested in playing this game. IMHO, it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

And it's just unnecessarily tiresome. I feel certain, however, that you (plural) will find others who feel differently and will continue with the circular firing squad that has achieved so little, other than to continue the divisiveness which the Republican party drools over.

[darkstar3]

85. You'll notice that you're the only one here talking about "teams" or "points."

You also have completely ignored my last post, especially the part I bolded. Your statement about "honest and civil discussion" is just the same exact dog whistle I've heard time and again...you're saying you'll only talk to people if you can completely avoid being offended by anything they say. Good luck with that on the internet. I know I for one will refuse to walk on eggshells just because someone doesn't think I'm "civil" enough.

The quickest way to "give aid and comfort to the enemy" is to put something beyond the reach of criticism.

[cbayer]

86. Look, darkstar. I am looking for allies, not adversaries.

The words you put in my mouth are nothing but the words that you have put in my mouth and in no way represent what I think, believe or feel. But keep telling me and others what we are saying, instead of correctly identifying it as what you are hearing and asking if that's correct. Good luck with that on the internet.

If your cause is to gain respect, justice and acceptance as an atheist in a country that has not shown this in the past, I would suggest that your tactics might be pretty counter-productive. There is a wide, wide gap between treating others well and walking on eggshells. Some seem to find this path quite easily. Others not so well.

I will talk to whomever I choose and I will disengage from anyone who appears to only want to score points, make it personal and maintain an adversarial position no matter what. There is absolutely no need for you to engage with me either. It seems pointless at this time.

[darkstar3]

87. I don't think I've misrepresented anything, as is clear from your last paragraph.

I am not your ally on topics of religion. I will not, and many others will not, be your ally within the confines of this forum. If you're looking for allies on causes ranging from LGBT issues, to economics, to many other topics, there are other places to go. If you're looking for allies on topics of religion, then you can find them in the safe haven groups listed on the left.

This hits on something I've tried to OP before but never felt like I had made clear: Our interests may run together on certain political issues here on the liberal side of the spectrum, but your goals and mine are not, and never will be, the same. It will remain that way at least until your motivations are irreligious in origin.

[cbayer]

88. Well, best of luck to you and yours then.

You are going to need allies if you wish to advance the goals of more understanding and acceptance of atheism and atheists or to continue to battle for clear separation of church and state.

I, for one, am going to ally with those that recognize this and avoid those who don't.

So, perhaps I will see you around some other groups. Good luck to you.

Gotta go. Guests arriving.

[darkstar3]

89. I neither need nor desire allies who wish for my silence on any topic.

[LeftishBrit]

78. Somewhat so, but hardly the worst

Not long ago, on another DU forum, I described a currently newsworthy political poem as 'crap'. Another poster replied with 'your review is crap''. I suppose neither of us was maximally polite, but no one fainted or acted as though our posts were the ultimate in bigotry, or something.

[rug]

61. No, I have precise criteria for disrespect and follow them asssiduosly.

Disrespect is well earned.

[darkstar3]

62. That's comedy.

[rug]

64. That's science.

[darkstar3]

66. I doubt it.

[handmade34]

12. we also ought not disrespect w/o reason...

I think the problem we have, is that fundamentalists have been so extremely vocal and dangerous that many of us put all 'believers' in that box... I grew up with a fundamentalist mother... I was never particuarily religious, I went to seminary and now I personally give religion/believe in my own life little thought... but I greatly respect others and openly allow them their beliefs

I see it differently than you... I respect others until I have a reason not to... you seem to want to have the ability to disrespect until you have a reason not to... I think that makes for poor communication and bad feelings...

[cleanhippie]

15. I do have a reason.

We ARE talking about religious beliefs here, aren't we? In my 45 years, I have PLENTY of reasons to not respect that. Belief in the supernatural is totally without basis or merit.

Yet, I am open to examining any evidence that someone may have that would garner some respect for those beliefs. Do you know of any?

[humblebum]

32. Maybe someday you'll be able to take those blinders off and

realize that just because you cannot comprehend something doesn't mean it ain't so.

[cleanhippie]

33. What I don't comprehend is why you seem to think I care what you think.

[eqfan592]

34. It doesn't mean it's so, either. (nt)

[AlbertCat]

91. just because you cannot comprehend something

What is this something that you comprehend that "we" don't?

[handmade34]

70. In my 60 years...

I have plenty of reasons to respect differences... (but I do understand what many of us have had to tolerate from religious zealots - but that is not what we are talking about here)

You say, “Belief in the supernatural is totally without basis or merit"
“Religious” belief is what Joseph Campbell explained as “masks of the…truth which is unknowable”

I love science and I respect empirical proof… and I also respect that there are some things that people still cannot comprehend. I don’t think it is our place to respect or disrespect the belief itself because it is an intimate personal experience; it is the person’s actions we react to. It is not our place to judge what others think or do in their private space (unless it is an acceptable open-minded discussion between persons).

If, that belief manifests itself into actions that affect us, then we have the option to speak out or make a judgment (and there you would be justified). I think the concern here is that you cannot really separate the belief from the person that holds that belief (assuming that it is a personal held belief).

[AlbertCat]

92. the truth which is unknowable

There's certainly no reason whatsoever to turn to the supernatural or ancient superstitions where that is concerned.

[ellisonz]

21. +1

[eqfan592]

43. You did actually read the part in his post where he said he respected people...

...but that their BELIEFS had to earn respect? Because based on your final paragraph, it would seem you did not...

[cbayer]

74. Agree. I think that what you describe is exactly what progressive/liberal or even moderate

believers are trying to fight.

A member posted here recently that she stopped wearing her crucifix necklace because people would assume that she was a subscriber to a certain kind of christianity and would label her a bigot or worse. It's a box that is very deep and climbing out of it is not all that easy (particularly when those who are otherwise on your team seem to refuse to recognize that there are huge differences).

[longship]

11. Do I detect a chip on your shoulder?

What did atheists ever do to you? Did we knock on your door on Sunday morning wanting to discuss your beliefs?

Please! There are many theists, atheists, and all sorts of followers-on here. Give us all a broad swath of opinion. That is what progressive politics is about.

As a nearly lifelong atheist I find the theist argument of being a persecuted minority to be tiring. Christians only have upwards of 80% of the US populace. Poor babies. Fortunately only Republican types and fundamentalists seem to make that argument.

Rather, let us find common ground. I would proudly stand next to any Christian here.

That is what is important.

[abq e streeter]

26. The only chip is being sick and fucking tired of the air of smug superiority that is expressed

over and over by far too many atheists in the progressive movement, including here. Your post consists, in part, of putting words in my mouth. I never suggested atheists ever "did " anything to me. I never suggested that theists are persecuted. I never suggested you or any atheist knocked on my door . I never suggested I was a Christian (I'm not). I did say I respected atheists' right to that belief, and that I too am totally against having ANY religion forced on me. I'm just sick of the "superior" attitude I see far too often. That's the one and only "chip" and I have had it with being looked down on for believing in some "sky daddy" (which I don't anyway, but that or words to that effect, are used continually to put down believers as being intellectually inferior) or in this case, referring to belief as "crap". I have never, and would never refer to an atheist's belief system as "crap" and ask for nothing more than the same consideration . I happen to be one intelligent, perceptive and thoughtful mofo and don't need to spoken to in a condescending and insulting manner, which is what every reference to a "sky daddy" or "crap" etc, is, as if I was too stupid to see the "truth " that my atheist fellow progressives have seen. I have no fucking idea what the truth is. And neither do they, but their smug air of "knowing" is just as obnoxious (although obviously infinitely less harmful) as any fundie's.

[eqfan592]

31. I think you may need to take a step back and a deep breath...(nt)

[mr blur]

37. We don't claim to know what the "truth" is,

we do however insist that extraordinary claims (such as your "creator of life and light&quot require extraordinary proof. You can't provide it and, I'm sure you don't even feel the need to. Because you have faith, that magic word which you seem to feel should give you immunity from mockery, disrespect and anything else you don't like. Well, it doesn't. You have the right to believe anything you want, I have the right to laugh at it. Especially as your defence of it seems to consist of whining about how badly you're treated by those who don't share your magical thinking.

And if you're 'sick of the "superior" attitude [you] see far too often' then try reading this forum from the POV of someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural and see if you enjoy the smug, superior attitudes of some of your fellow "progressive" theists - if they' ll even deign to lower themselves far enough to talk to you.

[LTX]

42. Well put. n/t

[abq e streeter]

50. Thank you !

[cordelia]

54. Yes indeed. n/t

[AlbertCat]

93. smug superiority that is expressed

Which is that?

Pointing out the absurdities of faith?


or just disagreeing with you?

Your faith seems pretty shaky if you get so upset over what atheists say.


Imagine OUR frustrations as religionists demand special treatment over and over.... treatment they do not think we deserve.

[Deep13]

35. I respect you, but I can't respect the belief.

The best I can do is pretend to respect it and I am just not that dishonest. Yes, you are a good, smart person and have a legal right to believe what you want. I believe those beliefs have no basis in fact and are ridiculous.

[Thats my opinion]

45. You are just right.

And some wonder why more theists don't join this conversation. Atheists are protected here--and they should be-- because no theist would use the put downs in post #2

[abq e streeter]

48. Thank you !

[eqfan592]

52. Nobody, except abq e streeter in this very thread...

...who said that his "atheist fellow progressives" had a "smug air of 'knowing'" and that it "is just as obnoxious as any fundie's."

I guess it's not saying the exact same thing in post two, but it's just as insulting because of the broad brush he used.

Sorry abq e streeter, but you exemplified the very things you were railing against in post 26, but that is something that is easy for any of us to do when we're angry.

I understand your anger and frustration, and while I can't say I respect your beliefs, because I find the vast majority of religious beliefs illogical and irrational (I'm not saying that to be insulting, it's just the way I honestly feel), I do still respect you as a person, and I can't say "crap" would have been my first choice in words when searching for a descriptor.

We all have to be really careful when it comes to painting with broad brushes, and we are all guilty of doing it from time to time.

[mr blur]

53. "Atheists are protected here"? This is feeble, even for you.

Protected against what?
Superstition? Magical thinking? Your own rapier-like wit and superior intellect?
Dream on.

[trotsky]

55. That's been his lament ever since he couldn't force us out of this forum by appealing to the admins.

We are allowed to voice our opinions in opposition to his, and he could not silence us, therefore we are "protected."

When studying an attitude such as his, it really comes as no surprise that back when they could, the religious powers-that-be silenced us with fire, torture devices, or the noose.

[darkstar3]

57. No, you prefer other put downs.

Here's a sampling of some of the put-downs you've used, when referring to people who disagree with you on this board and continue to prod you with tough questions. I'll admit some of these are synonyms, but that's a facet of your word-choice.

bigot
prejudiced
closed-minded
non-thinking (also applied to those theists who don't share your vision of God.)
ignorant
hateful
immature
toxic
and let's not forget my personal favorite where you implied directly that those without a strong religious grounding were amoral.

I think your high horse just bucked...

[LeftishBrit]

79. No theist would use the put downs in post 2?

Have you seen some of the things that a few theists do say about atheists? Have you seen the implications made that 'organized atheism' is politically dangerous, like a hate-group, could lead to a revival of the sort of violence perpetrated by Stalin, etc.?

I don't agree with post 2 or the way it was expressed, but it doesn't begin to compare with the anti-atheist hate I've seen expressed. I don't care if someone believes something different from me, or even if they think my atheist ideas are stupid or 'crap'; but I do mind very much if they think that atheists are lesser citizens, intrinsically unsuitable as political candidates, similar to a hate-group, or dangerous to society.

I would say, trying to look at things as objectively as possible, that there are probably numerically more aggressive atheists than aggressive theists on this forum, but the level of aggressiveness of the latter is far greater.

[mr blur]

80. +1 nt

[AlbertCat]

94. because no theist would use the put downs in post #2

No. They would just tell us we will burn in hell for all eternity.

Or, that we think we know "everything".

Or that we are simply too unenlightened to understand what theists are all giddy about.


Or that theists are more civil than atheists!

[cbayer]

46. +1

[abq e streeter]

49. Thank you !

[AlbertCat]

90. and have not had it "crammed down our throats".

Were you born in a bell jar?

Or have you heard religious stuff as long as you can remember? From birth?

Have you heard atheists being respected as long as you remember?

And I do know it's crap.... or at least highly implausible. There is no evidence that it isn't. Your personal feelings do not change that.

Pointing such things out is not smug superiority.

[handmade34]

5. that and

jail/prison

[cleanhippie]

7. Funny thing how some 99% of those in prison also believe in a god.

[Bonhomme Richard]

8. Covering their bets. n/t

[physioex]

13. Yes.....

And we are damn proud of it. Of course in the "real world" we are out numbered by all types of "religious assholes"......

[cleanhippie]

17. And yet, here YOU are.

So much for your theory that its only anti-religion assholes here.

[darkstar3]

18. "Can you put that in a memo and title it 'Shit I Already Know?'"

This information was contained in social studies books I had in class that were written in the 1970's. Not only is this old news, it's been talked about and explained at least a hundred different times that I know of.

So let me ask you a question: who gives a fuck?

[rug]

63. To answer your question, you do.

You care enough to post that you don't give a fuck.

That explains quite a bit.

[darkstar3]

67. You mistake disgust at seeing this "repost" for the hundredth time for caring about the content.

You mistake things about me often.

[rug]

68. You assume I give you much thought.

[darkstar3]

69. I have evidence. ;)

[FarCenter]

20. The data does not show that people tend more to believe in God as they age

It shows that older age groups have higher rates of belief. But they did not follow a cohort over time to determine whether a given cohort increased in belief with time.

The higher rate of belief by the old is what you expect in a society where belief is generally declining with time.

[robertch]

22. It's Demographics

Agreed, and everyone knows that the older generations are substantially more religious anyway.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. They did ask people if their belief changed; more lost their belief than gained it

Table 7 compares those shifting towards faith ("I believe in God now, but I didn't used to&quot with those moving away from belief ("I don't believe in God now, but I used to&quot . In 2008 there was a net gain in belief across the life course in 12 countries and a decline in 17 countries. The gains averaged 4.1 points and the losses -7.0 points for an overall change of -24 points.

It may be worth noting, for this board, the USA was one country showing a net gain in belief, of 1.4%. The big gain was in Russia, of 16%; most western European countries showed a net loss.

[LeftishBrit]

100. Good point

Though the study relied here on self-report, which is not always accurate.

But it is likely that many religious people do increase their religious interest as they get older: perhaps because of fewer other contacts and preoccupations; perhaps because of increasing awareness of death and their belief in an afterlife. I am less convinced that many atheists become religious in their old age.

[MineralMan]

23. And for many others it does not.

Seems like both things are true. So, I guess I don't see the significance of this, really.

[On the Road]

25. Rises with Age..

A comparison was also carried out of changes across time with cohort. It showed little clear indication overall or either aging or cohort effects.

Looks like according to the study, people who were born later have lower rates of belief. On the other hand, it does not support the idea that individuals become more religious as the age.

[SwissTony]

44. Exactly. This appears to be a couple of cross-sectional studies

(i.e. a snapshot of different individuals)not a longitudinal one (repeated measurements on the same individual).

[WingDinger]

28. There is eternal life, and it can be proven.

Energy cannot be destroyed, only translated. You wont be YOU, and everyone from Buddha to Jesus told you to do away with ego. The degree to which you DONT, is your misery.

[Silent3]

30. Life is much more than energy...

Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2012, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

...it's organized matter and energy. The Second Law of thermodynamics is what's important here, not the First. Only a constant influx of new energy (mainly solar energy for life on Earth) keeps the chain of life going. There is no separate "life energy" that is preserved. The energy of living beings is constantly turned into waste heat.

[Odin2005]

36. Woo jackpot!!!

[trotsky]

40. Nope, sorry.

No mention of "quantum" so it can't be a jackpot. Rules are rules!

[saras]

29. Life experience teaches one that humans are too stupid to survive without supernatural assistance.

At least, that's my theory as of 7:09 PM today.

[AlbertCat]

95. that humans are too stupid to survive without supernatural assistance.

Are we surviving?

The dinosaurs survived much longer than we've even been here. (actually they're still flying around)

[saras]

98. My number for a sustainable culture is 10,000 years. Less than that is temporary.

[moobu2]

38. Just another bit of proof that there's no such things as Gods

Like we needed any more.

[humblebum]

59. There IS no proof. nt

[moobu2]

71. I said it was a 'bit' of proof

meaning that it's just another bit of scientific information we can add to the mountain we already have that taken together proves there are no such things as actual Gods, Devils, Santa Clauses, Jesus saviors, tooth fairies or whatever.

[humblebum]

72. There IS no proof. nt

[moobu2]

75. There never will be proof to you

so don't worry about it, but, on the other hand if you were in any possession of any proof you wouldn't be worried about what some internet poster posted about it would you? No you wouldn't.

[humblebum]

76. Nor to you. Objective, empirical proof for or against deity simply does not exist and

no claims made for either are valid. Any claims are purely subjective. Your claim that any level or even "bit" of proof exists is bunk.

[AlbertCat]

96. no claims made for either are valid.

Nonsense.


There is ample proof supernatural forces are superfluous. That may not be utterly conclusive.... but....


Need we go thru Russell's Teapot .... again?

[humblebum]

97. There is not one shred of objective proof either way. Purely hypothetical.

Russell's Teapot proves nothing objectively and can easily be countered with ontological and teleological inquiry. But still NO objective proof.

[LeftishBrit]

77. I suspect that this is not a case of people becoming more religious as they get older..

but of levels of religious observance declining in many countries, with the result that older people are more likely than younger ones to have been brought up as religious.

[Evoman]

99. So does dementia.

[dimbear]

101. Your blood pressure slowly goes up too, up, up, up, til it reaches its goal: zero.

It's a parable.