Most Organized Religious Groups in USA Losing Ground

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
When it comes to religion, the USA is now land of the freelancers.
The percentage. of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers — or falling off the faith map completely.
...
Among the key findings in the 2008 survey:
• So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.
...
• Jewish numbers showed a steady decline, from 1.8% in 1990 to 1.2% today. The percentage of Muslims, while still slim, has doubled, from 0.3% to 0.6%. Analysts within both groups suggest those numbers understate the groups' populations.
Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky-Lexington, says that most national telephone surveys such as ARIS undercount Muslims, and that he is conducting a study of mosques' membership sponsored by the Hartford (Conn.) Institute for Religious Research.
...
Meanwhile, nearly 2.8 million people now identify with dozens of new religious movements, calling themselves Wiccan, pagan or "Spiritualist," which the survey does not define.
Wicca, a contemporary form of paganism that includes goddess worship and reverence for nature, has even made its way to Arlington National Cemetery, where the Pentagon now allows Wiccans' five-pointed-star symbol to be used on veterans' gravestones.
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

Thought I'd come out with a news snippet to balance the Catholic story. Nothing raises the blood pressure of the Christian right more then growing numbers of godless atheists and god-plenty others ;)
 
Very good news. I have no problem with religion, but big problems with organized religion.

As I said in the other thread, it just causes people to be lazy and never do much real deep thinking on moral issues. They just get drug to a church by the parents and brain washed in to the dogma of that particular denomination.

Personally, I've been an atheist for 15+ years and have no use for faith, supreme beings etc. But I don't look down on people for having such beliefs. But I do look down on those who 100% blindly adhere to their denominations dogma. Aside from brain washing and intellecual laziness, there's no way anyway is going to 100% agree with every party of any dogma 100% of the time.

I just think spirtuality (or lack thereof) should be a personal matter center around lots of reading and and reflecting. Not organized dogmatic circle jerks.
 
heard this on the radio. its really not too surprising, but what i found surprising is that there are as many mormons as there are jews in the US. thats kinda wild.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Thought I'd come out with a news snippet to balance the Catholic story. Nothing raises the blood pressure of the Christian right more then growing numbers of godless atheists and god-plenty others ;)[/QUOTE]

Don't get out your dreams-for-secular-populace party hats just yet.

There is nothing in your article that suggests the people in this trend are flocking to atheism in any quantifiable numbers. They are simply getting disillusioned with buildings, congregations and rules, and seeking spiritual enlightenment elsewhere.
 
What do you guys attribute this to? I think breakthroughs in communication probably plays a large role.. we're a global culture now, and I think the wealth of conflicting belief systems makes it hard for any one religion to really convince a person of its validity. People used to be far more ignorant of other religions -- nobody's Jewish in Louisiana, nobody's Muslim, etc.. 20 years ago, a kid growing up in Louisiana didn't know anything other than Christianity. It's easy for Christianity to posit its tenets as right when it's the only belief around. In a global culture, it's a lot more likely that person's going to hear "God had a son named Jesus. . ." and think "Then why doesn't the Qur'an say that. . . what makes your book better. . ."

The internet fucking rules.

I look forward to the day when we start seeing Japanese or Swedish levels of non-sheep.
 
[quote name='Koggit']What do you guys attribute this to? I think breakthroughs in communication probably plays a large role.. we're a global culture now, and I think the wealth of conflicting belief systems makes it hard for any one religion to really convince a person of its validity. People used to be far more ignorant of other religions -- nobody's Jewish in Louisiana, nobody's Muslim, etc.. 20 years ago, a kid growing up in Louisiana didn't know anything other than Christianity. It's easy for Christianity to posit its tenets as right when it's the only belief around. In a global culture, it's a lot more likely that person's going to hear "God had a son named Jesus. . ." and think "Then why doesn't the Qur'an say that. . . what makes your book better. . ."

The internet fucking rules.

I look forward to the day when we start seeing Japanese or Swedish levels of non-sheep.[/QUOTE]

def science/technology. i mean, if man can walk on the moon, clone sheeps and cure cancer with dead babies. why get water splashed on your face by a guy in a robe right?

i think another big thing is, and i hesitate to use this word but am going to for lack of a better one (or at least time to think of one), liberalism. many idealogies with liberalism just dont jive with traditional religious values.
 
[quote name='Koggit']What do you guys attribute this to? I think breakthroughs in communication probably plays a large role.. we're a global culture now, and I think the wealth of conflicting belief systems makes it hard for any one religion to really convince a person of its validity. People used to be far more ignorant of other religions -- nobody's Jewish in Louisiana, nobody's Muslim, etc.. 20 years ago, a kid growing up in Louisiana didn't know anything other than Christianity. It's easy for Christianity to posit its tenets as right when it's the only belief around. In a global culture, it's a lot more likely that person's going to hear "God had a son named Jesus. . ." and think "Then why doesn't the Qur'an say that. . . what makes your book better. . ."[/quote]

More and more religious people, even Christians, don't necessarily belong to a congregation or identify themselves with one. But they still believe in many of those so-called dangerous superstitions and beliefs.

The internet fucking rules.
Click to expand...
I do think the internet has a lot to do with it. But like I said, people aren't flocking to atheism. The numbers don't show that. They are simply recognizing there is a rich tapestry of different types of spiritual philosophies and methods they never knew about that are more readily accessible to learn about and explore than ever before.

I look forward to the day when we start seeing Japanese or Swedish levels of non-sheep.
Click to expand...
Which of course, as I'm sure you know, are just another color of sheep (i.e. groupthink).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Don't get out your dreams-for-secular-populace party hats just yet.

There is nothing in your article that suggests the people in this trend are flocking to atheism in any quantifiable numbers. They are simply getting disillusioned with buildings, congregations and rules, and seeking spiritual enlightenment elsewhere.[/quote]

Funny you say that because I'm not one of the rational materialists.

Athiesm has obviously grown rapidly (I don't see how a 7% jump can be interpreted any differently). However as the article states, many Muslims opt out of the survey (probably because it's an easy way out of a potentially dangerous conversation). I wouldn't be surprised if there are more of us in the 'other' category as well. After all, noone wants to start talking to a potentially loony stranger on the phone or the street about personal religious beliefs that aren't widely held.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
They are simply recognizing there is a rich tapestry of different types of spiritual philosophies and methods they never knew about that are more readily accessible to learn about and explore than ever before.
[/QUOTE]

Well, the % of atheists has jumped.

But in any case what you say is a good thing. Again I have no problem with people being spiritual or having religious beliefs. I have a problem with sheep that just adopt the dogma of whatever church their parents drug them to and do little deep thinking or reflection on their own to form their beliefs, morals and values.

Religion should be a deeply personal matter that involves a lot of personal thought and reflection, not mindless groupthink. And it should remain personal and not be forced on others or used to attack the lifestyles of people with different beliefs and values. It should be used as nothing more than personal guidance for how each individual wants to live their life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]15% of Americans are making progress then.
wink.gif


I actually think the real number is much higher than that. Many people claim they are Christian out of habit..or just to avoid the stigma/weirdness of the atheist and agnostic labels.. If you ask how many believe the bible is literally the word of God and that it's stories are factually accurate, you would have a "yes" number far lower than 85%.[/FONT]
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']
I actually think the real number is much higher than that. Many people claim they are Christian out of habit..or just to avoid the stigma/weirdness of the atheist and agnostic labels.
[/quote]

I don't think that's true. Especially not on a survey. Most non-believer are pretty happy to share their beliefs. Many too much so at the expense of being hypocrites and bordering on forcing their views on others by insulting religious folks. But to be fair I was somewhat guilty of that when younger, so it's probably just a maturity thing.

. If you ask how many believe the bible is literally the word of God and that it's stories are factually accurate, you would have a "yes" number far lower than 85%.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...

Huh? Not believing the bible literally etc. doesn't make one non-religious. It makes them one of the smart religious folk who take the time to think for themselves. So that would have no effect on the % atheist/agnostic.
 
I remember when a guy I worked with showed me why he disliked organized religion. He opened up phonebook and turned to the yellow pages.



- checks yellow pages, churches make up 6 pages in the yellow pages of my local phone book.
 
Maybe it's just my location, but I could swear Islam is a lot more predominant. Somalis are muslims right? They are everywhere in Minneapolis/St Paul.

I don't want to sound intolerant, but am I the only person that can't take wiccans seriously? Every wiccan I've ever know was a goth kid in highschool and just thought wicca was about sticking it to the man by being non conformist. Now that it's so popular, is it still cool and non conformist?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']heard this on the radio. its really not too surprising, but what i found surprising is that there are as many mormons as there are jews in the US. thats kinda wild.[/QUOTE]

Translation: All of Utah and 1% of the states surrounding it.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Maybe it's just my location, but I could swear Islam is a lot more predominant. Somalis are muslims right? They are everywhere in Minneapolis/St Paul. [/quote]

I work in a library at the U of M (student there, so cut me some slack) and I see them all the time. I'm pretty sure Minnesota has one of, if not the, highest populations of Muslims in the country, so it makes sense that we'd see a lot of them. Wouldn't be surprised if we were up there in the number of Muslims either. We do, after all, have the first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, representing us.
 
That's equal to about half of Manhattan, right?
[quote name='Eviltude']Translation: All of Utah and 1% of the states surrounding it.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']That's equal to about half of Manhattan, right?[/QUOTE]

Manhattan's population is about 1.6 million. The population of Utah is 2.7 million, of which about half are Mormon. So about the whole island.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Very good news. I have no problem with religion, but big problems with organized religion.

As I said in the other thread, it just causes people to be lazy and never do much real deep thinking on moral issues. They just get drug to a church by the parents and brain washed in to the dogma of that particular denomination.

Personally, I've been an atheist for 15+ years and have no use for faith, supreme beings etc. But I don't look down on people for having such beliefs. But I do look down on those who 100% blindly adhere to their denominations dogma. Aside from brain washing and intellecual laziness, there's no way anyway is going to 100% agree with every party of any dogma 100% of the time.

I just think spirtuality (or lack thereof) should be a personal matter center around lots of reading and and reflecting. Not organized dogmatic circle jerks.[/quote]

dmaul: I find the first line of this somewhat disingenuious. You go on to say that "organized religion" causes people to be lazy and never think for themselves, but this is simply not true. I can only speak for Christians as thats what I'm most closely associated with, but there are conflicts among the layity on a great many issues. For example, the Baptist Covenant included a line referring to "refrain(ing) from stron drink". I can assure you that a great many Baptists made their own decision to ignore that. I believe it was this disregard by the layity that resulted in that line being removed from the Convenat in later revisions. Some Baptists still believe though, that drinking in and of itself is a sin, others do not. There is not the 100% lockstep uniformity that you suggest exists.

Moreover, this 'groupthink' isnt the sole bastion of "organized religion", rather it is emblematic of "organizations" as a whole. Take for example politics, the GOP seems to have a reflexive view that government can do no right. Similarly, on the left, you're almost considered a traitor if you're not for a woman's right to choose.

Heck, among those who are followers of evolution and science ask why are dinosaurs extinct and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesnt say a comet/meteor caused the extinction. However, there is plenty of scientific evidence (or lack thereof) to put that theory into doubt.

In a more frivolous example, take the upcoming sports orgy that is March Madness (one of my favorite times of the year). Go to a sports bar while the local favorite is playing and listen to the people in the bar talk about how the other team is getting all the calls.

But it should not be suprising that people who choose to associate with one another would have similar thoughts about core issues. If you're not into preventing animal cruelty, you likely wont be joining the ASPCA. But if you're into wine, you're likely to join a wine tasting club.

I will one hundred percent agree with you that people are sheep, or better yet lemmings. Sheep at least need to have dedicated leadership, lemmings will just follw anything that moves. But that's not limited to religion. So I think your thesis statement either applies to organizations as a whole, or you find the religious organizations particularly offensive. If that's your position, so be it. But let's be clear m'kay?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think that's true. Especially not on a survey. Most non-believer are pretty happy to share their beliefs. Many too much so at the expense of being hypocrites and bordering on forcing their views on others by insulting religious folks. But to be fair I was somewhat guilty of that when younger, so it's probably just a maturity thing.[/quote]

I don't know about athiests, but I believe the article when it talks about underepresentation of Muslims, and I almost guarantee that goes for "other" as well.

[quote name='Kayden']I don't want to sound intolerant, but am I the only person that can't take wiccans seriously? Every wiccan I've ever know was a goth kid in highschool and just thought wicca was about sticking it to the man by being non conformist. Now that it's so popular, is it still cool and non conformist?[/quote]

You aren't the only one, they're also known as Fluffy Bunnies, Insta-witches, McWiccans, One-Book Witches, or Wicclets. http://wicca.timerift.net/fluffy.shtml
 
[quote name='hostyl1']dmaul: I find the first line of this somewhat disingenuious. You go on to say that "organized religion" causes people to be lazy and never think for themselves, but this is simply not true. I can only speak for Christians as thats what I'm most closely associated with, but there are conflicts among the layity on a great many issues. [/quote]

Of course there are exceptions--especially if you look across a whole religion. But you don't find too much disagreement on dogman among the congregation of the Baptist (or whatever) church on the corner. They're largely in agreement or people wouldn't be attending year after year. And many agree as that's what they were raised on etc.

And of course there will be more disagreement on minor things like drinking. Much less with in a church on major moral issues like abortion, homosexuality etc.

Moreover, this 'groupthink' isnt the sole bastion of "organized religion", rather it is emblematic of "organizations" as a whole. Take for example politics, the GOP seems to have a reflexive view that government can do no right. Similarly, on the left, you're almost considered a traitor if you're not for a woman's right to choose.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I hate the party system and any kind of group think. People need to put in the time and effort to think for themselves and not just follow the herd. Be it spirituality, politics or whatever.
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']I remember when a guy I worked with showed me why he disliked organized religion. He opened up phonebook and turned to the yellow pages.



- checks yellow pages, churches make up 6 pages in the yellow pages of my local phone book.[/QUOTE]

I don't get it...
 
[quote name='Koggit']I don't get it...[/quote]

It's a business.

Building a place of worship might be the safest investment in America.

(Assuming proper market research is conducted)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Political parties are cults of the here and now. Religions are cults of the then and later.

And as far as dinosaurs, unless you want digital video of the event, I'd say a 110 mile wide, 65 million year old crater in Mexico is pretty damning evidence. However, I really can't see you needing that much proof as you believe a man, who was the son of God, died and was resurrected three days later just because it's in a book that's been translated between several dead languages that was originally a collection of stories passed on orally.

Is a 3000 year old game of telephone across (at least) three languages really more factual than a hole in the Earth the size of Vermont?

[quote name='hostyl1']dmaul: I find the first line of this somewhat disingenuious. You go on to say that "organized religion" causes people to be lazy and never think for themselves, but this is simply not true. I can only speak for Christians as thats what I'm most closely associated with, but there are conflicts among the layity on a great many issues. For example, the Baptist Covenant included a line referring to "refrain(ing) from stron drink". I can assure you that a great many Baptists made their own decision to ignore that. I believe it was this disregard by the layity that resulted in that line being removed from the Convenat in later revisions. Some Baptists still believe though, that drinking in and of itself is a sin, others do not. There is not the 100% lockstep uniformity that you suggest exists.

Moreover, this 'groupthink' isnt the sole bastion of "organized religion", rather it is emblematic of "organizations" as a whole. Take for example politics, the GOP seems to have a reflexive view that government can do no right. Similarly, on the left, you're almost considered a traitor if you're not for a woman's right to choose.

Heck, among those who are followers of evolution and science ask why are dinosaurs extinct and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesnt say a comet/meteor caused the extinction. However, there is plenty of scientific evidence (or lack thereof) to put that theory into doubt.

In a more frivolous example, take the upcoming sports orgy that is March Madness (one of my favorite times of the year). Go to a sports bar while the local favorite is playing and listen to the people in the bar talk about how the other team is getting all the calls.

But it should not be suprising that people who choose to associate with one another would have similar thoughts about core issues. If you're not into preventing animal cruelty, you likely wont be joining the ASPCA. But if you're into wine, you're likely to join a wine tasting club.

I will one hundred percent agree with you that people are sheep, or better yet lemmings. Sheep at least need to have dedicated leadership, lemmings will just follw anything that moves. But that's not limited to religion. So I think your thesis statement either applies to organizations as a whole, or you find the religious organizations particularly offensive. If that's your position, so be it. But let's be clear m'kay?[/quote]
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']It's a business.

Building a place of worship might be the safest investment in America.

(Assuming proper market research is conducted)[/quote]

If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.
- L. Ron Hubbard
Click to expand...
.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Which of course, as I'm sure you know, are just another color of sheep (i.e. groupthink).[/quote]

How is everyone having his or her own idea and opinion group thinking?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']How is everyone having his or her own idea and opinion group thinking?[/quote]

Oh yeah, Japan is a nation of individualists, to the point of bordering on anarchy. Japanese people hardly ever agree on anything and the culture is very accepting of a wide variety of opinions and ideas.

Sweden too, what a diverse culture!
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Having their levels of religious dissent would not automatically make everyone the same.[/quote]

If we look at a few other surveys and statistics published on religions in Japan, the variety of results is amazing. A survey conducted by Asahi Shimbun in 1995 asked national voters in which religion they believe. The results were similar to ours with non-believers in the majority (63%), followed by Buddhists (26%), Shintoists (2%) and Christians (1%). On the other hand, the official number of believers published by the Agency of Cultural Affairs in 1997 show the Japanese nation to consist of 49% Shintoists, 44% Buddhists and 2% Christians (in total far over 100% since many people consider themselves Shinto Buddhists). What are the reasons for these large differences? The wording of the question? An uncertainty concerning the meaning of the terms "religion" and "believe" in a Japanese context, especially concerning Shinto?
Click to expand...

http://www.japan-guide.com/topic/0002.html

Listen, I think that on a whole the Japanese are much more rational about religion then Americans (hell just about every industrialized nation is). But that still doesn't mean most Japanese people came to their particular religious (or non-religious) perspective as a result of sitting down in the middle of a bunch of philosophical and religious tomes in the library and noodling it through, or climbing a mountain and meditating on it.

It's easy to cherry-pick a few stats and make wide assumptions about the people's individualism, diversity and tolerance for ideas which clash with those of their society, family and friends. But fact is in a conformist culture (which Japan most certainly is) the majority are going to have the same ideals as their peers.
 
[quote name='camoor']http://www.japan-guide.com/topic/0002.html

Listen, I think that on a whole the Japanese are much more rational about religion then Americans (hell just about every industrialized nation is). But that still doesn't mean most Japanese people came to their particular religious (or non-religious) perspective as a result of sitting down in the middle of a bunch of philosophical and religious tomes in the library and noodling it through, or climbing a mountain and meditating on it.

It's easy to cherry-pick a few stats and make wide assumptions about the people's individualism, diversity and tolerance for ideas which clash with those of their society, family and friends. But fact is in a conformist culture (which Japan most certainly is) the majority are going to have the same ideals as their peers.[/QUOTE]


I'm thrustbucket and I approve of this message.
 
I was just trying to say that preferring orange juice to apple juice is not the same as joining a cult/organized religion. I am not sure how the homogeneous Japanese culture applies to that argument. I understand people can be "sheep" even without a lord as their shepherd, but it's not definite.
 
The good news is that more people are skeptical of organized religion.

The bad news is that many people still accept other forms of sophisticated brainwashing without knowing it.
 
[quote name='rickonker']The good news is that more people are skeptical of organized religion.

The bad news is that many people still accept other forms of sophisticated brainwashing without knowing it.[/QUOTE]

Babysteps. :D
 
[quote name='Koggit']What do you guys attribute this to? I think breakthroughs in communication probably plays a large role.. we're a global culture now, and I think the wealth of conflicting belief systems makes it hard for any one religion to really convince a person of its validity. People used to be far more ignorant of other religions -- nobody's Jewish in Louisiana, nobody's Muslim, etc.. 20 years ago, a kid growing up in Louisiana didn't know anything other than Christianity. It's easy for Christianity to posit its tenets as right when it's the only belief around. In a global culture, it's a lot more likely that person's going to hear "God had a son named Jesus. . ." and think "Then why doesn't the Qur'an say that. . . what makes your book better. . ."

The internet fucking rules.

I look forward to the day when we start seeing Japanese or Swedish levels of non-sheep.[/QUOTE]

There's some evidence that people's actual behaviors reflect a narrow-minded approach to internet information. Our discussions here in the vs forum rarely demonstrate our openness to ideas and arguments that seem contrary to what we think already. We check daily kos/huffington post/think progress, or we check red state/michelle malkin/politico. When we do "go to the other side," however, we do so with a sneer and an air of disdain, and with the attitude of a spy going to gather information/on reconnaissance.

That said, one thing I know a little bit about it religion; at least, the disconnect between what people identify as and how they live their lives. "Religiosity" involves measures of how involved in the church a person is, which is a proxy for how meaningful/important that faith is. Not everyone can be as dedicated as the priests, and the church would crumble if everyone were "Christmas n' Easter" churghgoers like myself. But, ask us our religion, and suddenly we're all indistinguishably "Catholic."

So, you'll forgive me if I don't assume any immediate corresponding change in how we live our lives because fewer people identify as having a certain religious identity.

(This is irrespective of how religion itself, as an institution, has changed in the past 19 years, of course).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']There's some evidence that people's actual behaviors reflect a narrow-minded approach to internet information. Our discussions here in the vs forum rarely demonstrate our openness to ideas and arguments that seem contrary to what we think already. We check daily kos/huffington post/think progress, or we check red state/michelle malkin/politico. When we do "go to the other side," however, we do so with a sneer and an air of disdain, and with the attitude of a spy going to gather information/on reconnaissance.

That said, one thing I know a little bit about it religion; at least, the disconnect between what people identify as and how they live their lives. "Religiosity" involves measures of how involved in the church a person is, which is a proxy for how meaningful/important that faith is. Not everyone can be as dedicated as the priests, and the church would crumble if everyone were "Christmas n' Easter" churghgoers like myself. But, ask us our religion, and suddenly we're all indistinguishably "Catholic."

So, you'll forgive me if I don't assume any immediate corresponding change in how we live our lives because fewer people identify as having a certain religious identity.

(This is irrespective of how religion itself, as an institution, has changed in the past 19 years, of course).[/quote]

Which is basically what Nietzsche meant when he said "God is dead". In the middle ages European people lived their lives around the Christian God, the Christian church was literally in the center of town, religious leaders held political power, the religious calendar with it's alternating periods of (literal and figurative) feasting and fasting was followed as a matter of fact.

In the modern era many people still pay homage to the Christian religion, but for the most part their participation is superficial at best. Just look at the behavior of most modern Christians - attending church on sunday, paying for upkeep of church buildings, and following church leader cues to get riled up about the cause du jour, be it birth control, stem cells, or gay marriage - other then these behaviors and a huge persecution complex, most Christians are indistiguishable from secular Americans.
 
[quote name='Kayden']
And as far as dinosaurs, unless you want digital video of the event, I'd say a 110 mile wide, 65 million year old crater in Mexico is pretty damning evidence. However, I really can't see you needing that much proof as you believe a man, who was the son of God, died and was resurrected three days later just because it's in a book that's been translated between several dead languages that was originally a collection of stories passed on orally. [/quote]

The problem is not did a comet/meteor hit the earth, that surely did happen. The question is, did that event wipe out the dinosaurs? There was a quite informative show on Discovery or History channel recently that spoke to dinosaurs (and their vegetative food supply) being in rapid decline before the K-T event. Even the fossil record has shown bones buried ~half a million years *after* the K-T event. There are still other competing theories inculding combinations of these events.

However, the point I was making is that many people reflexively spout that "the asteroid killed the dinosaurs". While this is a leading *theory*, it is hardly well setlled science. To stop investigation at the K-T event and ignore all the other evidence is at least as intellectually lazy as some suggest is believing in the words of a book in a dead language as you put it.

My belief in a "3000 year old game of telephone" is besides the point. I at least am able to say that faith is irrational. But to be someone who relies on hard evidence, but then refuses to seek out and investigate *all* the evidence is at least as irrational.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']The problem is not did a comet/meteor hit the earth, that surely did happen. The question is, did that event wipe out the dinosaurs? There was a quite informative show on Discovery or History channel recently that spoke to dinosaurs (and their vegetative food supply) being in rapid decline before the K-T event. Even the fossil record has shown bones buried ~half a million years *after* the K-T event. There are still other competing theories inculding combinations of these events.

However, the point I was making is that many people reflexively spout that "the asteroid killed the dinosaurs". While this is a leading *theory*, it is hardly well setlled science. To stop investigation at the K-T event and ignore all the other evidence is at least as intellectually lazy as some suggest is believing in the words of a book in a dead language as you put it.

My belief in a "3000 year old game of telephone" is besides the point. I at least am able to say that faith is irrational. But to be someone who relies on hard evidence, but then refuses to seek out and investigate *all* the evidence is at least as irrational.[/quote]

You're right. In an area showing signs of very, very old flooding, there were some bones above the K-T border. If we watched the same program, there was a scientist hypothesizing a second meteorite due more shocked quartz in that same flooded area. Then, there was a pissing contest between the two scientists. During said program, nobody corrected both scientists by saying the world was actually 6000 years old and all human suffering was caused by chicks taking fruit from snakes.

Are you trying to argue that not actively pursuing when the last dinosaur dropped dead is as irrational as pretending the world didn't exist 7000 years ago?
 
I would say some difference is that there's at least physical evidence behind that theory--while religion is based on books of stories written by man and passed through generations over thousands of years.

But yes, even in science people get to attached to their theories and aren't open enough to researching other possible explanations.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']The problem is not did a comet/meteor hit the earth, that surely did happen. The question is, did that event wipe out the dinosaurs? There was a quite informative show on Discovery or History channel recently that spoke to dinosaurs (and their vegetative food supply) being in rapid decline before the K-T event. Even the fossil record has shown bones buried ~half a million years *after* the K-T event. There are still other competing theories inculding combinations of these events.

However, the point I was making is that many people reflexively spout that "the asteroid killed the dinosaurs". While this is a leading *theory*, it is hardly well setlled science. To stop investigation at the K-T event and ignore all the other evidence is at least as intellectually lazy as some suggest is believing in the words of a book in a dead language as you put it.

My belief in a "3000 year old game of telephone" is besides the point. I at least am able to say that faith is irrational. But to be someone who relies on hard evidence, but then refuses to seek out and investigate *all* the evidence is at least as irrational.[/quote]

Pulling a trigger doesn't kill someone. The damage a bullet causes kills someone. The rock didn't hit the planet and all the dinosaurs dropped dead, that's just foolish. It's akin to Alive. They survived the plane crash and had enough food for a little while, but then they started eating each other after food ran out.

Less light makes smaller plants. Dwindling plants means you can support fewer herbivores. You have fewer herbivores so you have fewer carnivores. I believe I read that dinosaurs lasted as long as 200,000 years after K-T. As their numbers shrank, there was more more opportunity for smaller reptiles and mammals who were better able to make use of the smaller plants/needed less.

Anyways, the point seemed to revolve around proof. There were dinosaurs, there was a massive impact, and there are not dinosaurs. Granted, there could have been multiple factors contributing to their demise, but the timing seems kind of convenient. Either way, it's substantially more proof than you can muster on religion's behalf.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']There's some evidence that people's actual behaviors reflect a narrow-minded approach to internet information. Our discussions here in the vs forum rarely demonstrate our openness to ideas and arguments that seem contrary to what we think already. We check daily kos/huffington post/think progress, or we check red state/michelle malkin/politico. When we do "go to the other side," however, we do so with a sneer and an air of disdain, and with the attitude of a spy going to gather information/on reconnaissance.

That said, one thing I know a little bit about it religion; at least, the disconnect between what people identify as and how they live their lives. "Religiosity" involves measures of how involved in the church a person is, which is a proxy for how meaningful/important that faith is. Not everyone can be as dedicated as the priests, and the church would crumble if everyone were "Christmas n' Easter" churghgoers like myself. But, ask us our religion, and suddenly we're all indistinguishably "Catholic."

So, you'll forgive me if I don't assume any immediate corresponding change in how we live our lives because fewer people identify as having a certain religious identity.

(This is irrespective of how religion itself, as an institution, has changed in the past 19 years, of course).[/quote]

Your points are really good, and I do my best to be the opposite of the portrait in your first paragraph.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Your points are really good, and I do my best to be the opposite of the portrait in your first paragraph.[/QUOTE]
So you hang out on sites you disagree with, and visit the "other side" with a sneer and an air of disdain? :D
 
[quote name='DeftPunk'] Either way, it's substantially more proof than you can muster on religion's behalf.[/QUOTE]

oh yeah?

First there was nothing. Then, God created light. BOOYA! there you go, stick that in your pipe and smoke you it you soulless hippie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top