LINK Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians - The Atlantic
Very interesting article.
The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”
Of course, this is based on what we define as religious, a point this article is aware of.
However, given the host of superstitions and non-scientific practices that many nones engage in (like homeopathy, crystals, reiki, etc) and the need for community and rituals, this characterization doesn't surprise me.
(EDIT: yes, the title is misleading since the content is about "nones" and not particularly about atheists. It's not wrong however since atheists are part of nones. The article itself however is not misleading and makes it a point to make said distinction and builds upon it.)
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
15 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I met an atheist today who went on to tell me about going to a transcendental meditation yoga group. Apparently a couple of the people levitated off the ground. I asked her is she believed in gravity.
MsDemeanour
Level 8
Dec 21, 2018
0
The ways in which meanings of words like "religious" are shifted possibly confused the picture. The writer could have done a better job of explaining the change in meaning or use of the word. But in the post, it sounded like you might be lumping atheists together with nones who believe in crystals and superstitions. Most atheists definitely do not believe in that sort of thing.
It seems that today, the use of words like "religious" and "church", and the complexity or confusion about who is religious or who is not, is a problem.
AlasBabylon
Level 8
Nov 7, 2018
1
"Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff."
- Community, singing with others and discussing morality is not religion. That's human behavior some religious people are trying to patent - as if they owned or invented it.
MLinoge
Level 7
Nov 2, 2018
1
@TheMiddleWay True. I don't understand why they keep calling it that. I thought it made sense in the beginning as communities of nonbelievers were just starting to form and come out of the closet, and familiar terms were a good place to kick off from. But now.... It's almost as if they are trying to provoke a reaction from the believer who will consider it blasphemy.
@TheMiddleWay I would agree that it makes more sense to use some other term. People sometimes attribute their own personal meaning to a word, rather than adhere to the way the word is used by the rest of the world. Anybody is free to use a word the way the want to, but this can cause problems when it comes to communication and understanding.
Who are they kidding, " Atheists are sometimes more religious than Christians," REAL Atheists have little or no interest in the Rituals, Rites and Superstitious ways of any religion, they seek to expose them, discuss them and , Yes, ridicule them from time to time simply because they are RIDICULOUS.
Triphid
Level 9
Nov 2, 2018
1
@TheMiddleWay Then, in my opinion you know very few REAL Atheists and the same or less about Atheism.
@okiestache Er, excuse my ignorance, but what does that mean please.
@okiestache I read it until I felt most nauseous.
@TheMiddleWay Well considering that Father was one, so was my Late Daughter and I am one plus I am great friends with 4 others and am acquainted with at least 300 more I tend to think your 'No True Scotsman Fallacy' has just suffered from the ' Lead ( Lead as in the metal btw) Duck' problem.
@TheMiddleWay Okay, first off let's deal with you self-righteous pedantry, shall we?
Perhaps, instead of using 'REAL' I should have used GENUINE or Dedicated, would that suit your need for exactness?
Genuine/Dedicated ATHEISTS, imo and very long experience differ from what I would call the ' Fashionable/Trendy Atheists, i.e. they still have a lingering seed of religious belief within them BUT will don their atheist hat as and when the situation requires just as do so many who claim to be ex-Catholics for example simply because they fear shedding the yoke ' just in case' they may need it again some day.
You see, imho, shedding oneself of religion is akin to striving to rid a street dog of fleas in that you may get rid of them today BUT tomorrow, or some other day, they will be back.
Secondly, as to my setting myself up as the ' sole judge,' as you put it, you could NOT be any further off the mark even if you tried your hardest.
I congratulate you on having your PhD in Physics and upgrading it to include Medicine, well done, BUT, I don't wish to sound boastful, arrogant or self-centered here, I also have 3 Doctorate Degrees ( hence the username TRIPHID meaning Tri=3, PhD to which I added the letter I to make it more sensible) in Psychology, Physiology and Theology and Comparative Modern Religions as well as 4 Bachelors Degrees in Histories ( both Modern and Ancient), Ancient Languages, Anatomy and Medical Sciences and am presently studying to gain my degree in Archaeology.
FYI, the definition of an ATHEIST is derived from the Ancient Greek meaning A- without, denying, rejecting and Theos - meaning God/Gods or Deities ergo simply an ATHEIST is one who denies, rejects or is without any or ALL God/s or Deities what-so-ever, therefore I can claim and am most definitely a Genuine Atheist as are the 306 other Genuine Atheists I mentioned in my earlier comment/post.
@TheMiddleWay Sorry Amigo, but I've debated with ever so many of the kind who are, it seems, just looking for a verbal stoutch simply to attempt to add some extra ' hot air' to inflate their egos, people like Bishops, Archbishops, Prelates and all types of Clergy included.
So, I respectfully suggest that you take a chill-pill then have a good long walk in the fresh air instead.
@TheMiddleWay No, I am truly modest about my educational achievements, I only mentioned them to you as a mere comment.
Interesting, but not only is the article playing with the definition of "religious" ( "It’s religion, minus all the God stuff" ) but the title editor of the article is playing with the definition of "nones" and decided to use "atheist" instead, apparently to catch your eye at the expense of accuracy.
Heraclitus
Level 8
Nov 2, 2018
2
Not true!......they can and often do ...have more Humanity than so called” religious” people.
Also being an Atheist and not believing in the “ Devine”, doesn’t mean that you aren’t “ Spiritual “,
bubaj50
Level 7
Nov 2, 2018
0
Can you accurately define ' spiritual,' as against it being somewhat based on a religious bent?
@TheMiddleWay too bad that you aren’t open minded
@TheMiddleWay it isn’t an empirical “thing”that can be measured . You actually have to trust that those ,that have “abilities”,are sincere. My daughter and my cousin are Atheists and they have great insight into that realm...I have no reason to doubt them .
@TheMiddleWay I’m a born sceptic too. I regret and am sorry for that “ open minded” remark. Hard for me to accept anything less than logical too. Needed to make a point that is import to me .
i love the atlantic but sometimes it deliberately pubilshes titles that irritate. this is one of them.
g
genessa
Level 8
Nov 2, 2018
3
@TheMiddleWay i may check it out later. i am struggling to get some sleep. four weeks is too long to be sick. sleeplessness is not helping. but i also have a backlog!
g
@TheMiddleWay lol i have made dinner and put it in the freezer and made tomorrow's dinner and it's cooling so i can put it in the freezer too, and made and eaten lunch, and now i am exhausted! i make the food in advance because i know by evening i will finally have crashed and not wake up in time to go starting stuff from scratch. tonight: juicy lucies. tomorrow: meat loaf. eyes and body need rest now.
g
I think that paper/magazine would NOT be suitable for even wiping ones arse since it is already far too polluted to start with.
@TheMiddleWay Yes, well written journalistic drivel of the First class.
“I hypothesize that being ‘spiritual’ may be a transitional position between being Christian and being non-religious,” said Linda Woodhead, a professor of politics, philosophy, and religion at Lancaster University in the U.K.“
Sound like what she is saying is that a spiritual person is sort of like a dying flame, about to flicker out. It could be the opposite. A flame of awareness might have been lit within them and that flame might be growing with each passing day. Spiritual people have no use for authoritarian religious organizations with their rigid dogmas—the kingdom of God is within them, metaphorically speaking.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Nov 2, 2018
1
Let's get our terms straight. Atheists would be a (relatively small) subset of nones, and definitionally can't be religious unless you are talking about a non-theistic religion (e.g., Buddhism) or have an unusually broad definition of religiosity that most would probably call "spiritual but not religious".
So if nones are by some measure more religious (or more observant) than most Christians, then there's no basis to substitute the label "atheists" for "nones". Let the data say what it says.
Otherwise it's just like saying that vegans are more carnivorous than southerners, it has no meaning.
mordant
Level 8
Nov 2, 2018
3
@TheMiddleWay When you see a headline that's misleading on an article that's not misleading, spare a moment to reflect on what it is to be a journalist, to put your byline on something that you've carefully researched, only for some editor to change the title to something totally misleading in the interest of attracting eyeballs or selling papers or whatever. Usually more inflammatory or alarmist. My wife used to be an investigative journalist and this was possibly the biggest fly in the ointment for her. Her sources would think she stabbed them in the back with the headline. Sometimes the editor would even pull some buried sentence or two out of context and lead with it for the same reason, so that careless readers could assume way too much.
So I don't automatically assume the author of this piece doesn't know what they're talking about, or are careless with words. The culprit is likely not them. The problem of course is people see the headline, don't read the article, and cite it as "proof" for some flawed argument.
Completely depend of definition. Are we discussing religion or morality.
I have always been asked if I were christian due to the way I treat people. My entire life was spent believing if I do anything for gain and this action hurts innocent people, then I do not do it . Now my question is why would you ask me if I am a believer just because I have ethics. Never call me religious or a god believer, This affects my morality as I do not believe the majority of religious people are ethical
EMC2
Level 8
Nov 2, 2018
1
EMC2:
@TheMiddleWay What one practices is their belief system.
I see as the core of which the morality gene comes out. Religion made morality into a gift that can be won . It is their definition of morality, with out us you are a jerk.
What you do speaks so loud , I can't hear a word you say, Love that saying.
No surprise here about the result. I'm not even surprised by the surprise considering all the misleading language in the article. Atheists are not the same as "non-affiliated", of course. I wouldn't count going to churches as religious activity because it is just community. Religion without the supernatural is not religion anymore, but just a moral community except you want to define the boy scouts as religion. Then there's the confusion about word 'secular'. Does it mean 'without religion' or 'without a believe in god'? There's more but I would expect a bit more rigor in these kinds of researches and in the reporting. Science news seems to have no standards these days.
Dietl
Level 7
Nov 2, 2018
1
I basically agree with you. The title of the article equates "nones" with "atheists" which is just wrong under any reasonable definition. You just can't say "some atheist believe in god" because it is a contradiction. So even if you have different definitions your definitions have to be consistent. The article doesn't even meet this minimal criterium, which is ridiculous. But I don't think we disagree on this point.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.