Survey: One in Five Americans are Without Religion

The fastest growing “religious” group in America is made up of people with no religion at all, according to a Pew survey showing that one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion.

The number of these Americans has grown by 25% just in the past five years, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The survey found that the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing even faster among younger Americans.

Thirty-three million Americans now have no religious affiliation, with 13 million in that group identifying as either atheist or agnostic, according to the new survey.

Pew found that those who are religiously unaffiliated are strikingly less religious than the public at large. They attend church infrequently, if at all, are largely not seeking out religion and say that the lack of it in their lives is of little importance.

And yet Pew found that 68% of the religiously unaffiliated say they believe in God, while 37% describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious.” One in five said that they even pray every day.

John Green, a senior research adviser at Pew, breaks the religiously unaffiliated into three groups. First, he says, are those who were raised totally outside organized religion.

Second are groups of people who were unhappy with their religions and left.

The third group, Green says, comprises Americans who were never really engaged with religion in the first place, even though they were raised in religious households.

According to the poll, 88% of religiously unaffiliated people are not looking for religion.

Poll respondents 18-29 were also more likely to identify as atheist or agnostic. Nearly 42% religious unaffiliated people from that age group identified as atheist or agnostic, a number far greater than the number who identified as Christian (18%) of Catholic (18%).

(via atheismfuckyeah)

Source: CNN

Couple to Debate Right to Distribute Atheist Material

helvetebrann:

Rene and Anna Chouinard, who have three children, have been fighting with the board for more than two years to have an age-appropriate publication — Just Pretend: A Free Thought Book for Children and Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist — distributed to Grade 5 students.

The couple, who are humanists and follow a religion-free way of life, took their case to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on Aug. 20 and were granted a hearing on the issue. While no date has yet been set for the proceeding, the tribunal allowed the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Canadian Civil Liberties Association to act as interveners in two-days of hearings.

The fight began after the Chouinards’ refused to sign a consent form for their daughter to distribute Gideon International Bibles at her school.

They then unsuccessfully sought to obtain permission to distribute Just Pretend, citing other groups should be allowed to have their publications distributed in Niagara schools as well.

“This is a solid decision by the tribunal that is good for society,” Rene said after being granted a hearing. “We would like to see religion completely removed from the classroom.”

He said the Niagara school board should focus on education and not religion or other issues.

The Chouinards alleged they were discriminated against “due to creed” and that no material from non-Christian religions were solicited or distributed in the district.

“If they allow Gideon Bibles in the schools, then why can’t other groups distribute their material as well,” he said on Tuesday. “This is not fair for people who may believe in other religions.”

He said Jews should be able to leave Torahs and Muslims their Koran in area schools.

It’s funny how as soon as other materials, besides Christian materials, are to be distributed that the school districts clam up and no longer say that they are simply distributing material based on who wants to distribute.

Circumcision Ritual Under Fire in New York Due to Risk of Herpes Outbreak

A controversial Jewish circumcision ritual is under fire after allegedly causing the deaths of two infants and exposing potentially thousands more to the risk of herpes infections.

New York City health officials are pushing a proposed regulation that would require parents to sign a consent waiver before they take part in a circumcision ritual called “metzitzah b’peh,” typically practiced by ultra-Orthodox Jews. The ritual potentially poses a fatal risk to newborns, according to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The legislation was proposed at a Board of Health meeting last month by Dr. Jay K. Varma, deputy commissioner for disease control for New York City’s health department, after 11 infants contracted neonatal herpes between November 2000 and December 2011, after the circumcision ritual. Two of the infants died.

Jews regularly practice circumcision as part of their religion, but mostly ultra-Orthodox Jews practice metzitzah b’peh, during which the mohel, or person performing the procedure, orally sucks the blood from the infant’s newly circumcised penis.

The health department reported last month that an estimated 20,493 infants in New York City were exposed to direct oral suction. Baby boys who were reportedly circumcised “with confirmed or probable orogenital suction” between April 2006 and December 2011 had an estimated risk of contracting neonatal herpes (HSV-1) infection of 24.4 per 100,000 cases, making the risk 3.4 times greater than those infants who did not have direct oral suction, according to the health department findings.

In a statement advising New York parents to refrain from direct oral-genital suction during circumcision, New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley said, “There is no safe way to perform oral suction on any open wound in a newborn.

what the fuck is this shit

(via helvetebrann)

I’m sorry to be going on this Atheism rant, but…

goodreasonnews:

apology accepted.

karnman88:

I’ve stated this before and I’ll state it again, I dislike atheists. I have nothing wrong with Atheism, I have a problem with a lot of its followers.

Well, atheism isn’t a belief system that has tenets and there are no “followers” of atheism, so right off the bat the thing you’re saying is nonsense. Atheism is a position on one single issue, a response to the question: Are you convinced a god exists. If the answer is no, you’re called an atheist. That’s all there is to it, brah.

Why is it that most Atheists have to come off as smug, intolerant assholes?

You must think everyone who’s thought an issue through and can clearly explain their position is a smug, intolerant asshole.

Not everyone is like this, but there is definitely a vocal minority/majority that get a lot of attention.

You expose how little you know what you’re talking about when you don’t even have an idea as to whether you’re talking about the majority or the minority. Is there any chance you’re making this up in your imagination? Sounds a lot like prejudice to me.

Why can’t they sell their beliefs without insulting everyone?

There are no beliefs in atheism, atheism is not a system of beliefs, it’s a stance on one issue. I know I said it already, but you seem like the type that needs things explained again and again.

Why do they have to mock people of faith and view them as intellectually inferior for believing in a higher power?

Because it is intellectually inferior and it demonstrably leads to harm and social ills. Religion is a scam. Would you defend the conmen behind a pyramid scheme and say “why does consumer reports have to expose the fraud of scam artists? Why can’t we just let them live, maaaannn!?”

To me, mocking someone for their beliefs is akin to Antisemitism or Islamophobia. It does not lead down a good path…

Well, that’s bullshit because anti-Semitism and Islamophobia involves the systematic, institutionalized legal and social suppression of individuals based on their heritage and/or religious beliefs. That’s certainly not what I’m advocating and while there is no tenets to atheism (so I can’t speak for any other atheists) many of the atheists I know who have an interest in social justice issues make a clear distinction between targeting an oppressive system like Islam and bigotry against individuals. Individuals deserve the same treatment under the law, but religious organizations which take advantage of individuals (which is all of them) do not. While people always ought to be free to choose to join a religious organization, I’m here to present good reasons why they ought not do so.

But here is the thing, if atheists are so drawn to logic and reason, they should be agnostic.

You don’t know what ‘agnostic’ means. You’ve accepted this Vatican-sponsored doublespeak idea that atheists assert there is no god, theists assert there is and agnostics are in the middle or are saying “I don’t know.” I know it’s hard to accept, but you’ve been duped, my friend. There is no such thing as an ‘agnostic.’ Gnosticism is a word that describes knowledge. It literally translates to “knowledge.” To call yourself an agnostic or gnostic is to answer the question whether or not you think you have knowledge of a god existing. An agnostic theist would say she doesn’t KNOW that there’s a god, like she doesn’t have hard evidence, but she’s convinced nonetheless. An agnostic atheist Also doesn’t know, has no direct evidence and thereby has admitted they are unable to form a belief around the thing they have no knowledge of. Theism, by the way, is a term that refers to belief. If you have a specific belief in a god, if you believe that god is a real thing and has at least one trait you can explain, you’re a theist, you are with belief. I don’t have that belief. That’s not to assert there is no god, that’s just to say, I don’t believe any things about a god.   

I don’t know if “Schrödinger’s Cat” is an appropriate example or metaphor, but I think it is similar. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of something you cannot see.

Yeah, so like we were saying, there is no ‘disproving’ there is only accept of don’t accept. Look, do you believe in flavooglorps? You don’t know what a flavooglorp is, so you’re agnostic about it, you have no knowledge, but in addition, you don’t believe flavooglorps are real. You don’t say I made them up because a falvooglorp might be a new kind of moss growing in my yard I can show you and then you’ll say, ‘yes I believe it’s real.’ Until then, though, you’re an agnostic atheist in regards to flavooglorps.

Let me give you an example. There is a 100-square mile section of forest. Is there a bear in the woods? Finding a bear could prove to be difficult, and after a week of searching you find nothing. But does that mean there is no bear at all? Who knows? All you can say is that you could not find a bear, but you cannot say with 100% conviction that there is not a single bear in that entire forest. You will not know until you search every square inch of that forest.

Right, you don’t know, but do you believe it anyway?

You will not know if God exists until you die.

How do you know you’ll find out when you die? If there is no afterlife you wouldn’t find out and if there was how do you know that part of the afterlife is finding out if there’s a god. You’re operating under a whole host of false dichotomies. What if there is an afterlife, but you still don’t find out about god? What if there’s a god, but no afterlife? Why do you think you have some understanding of the nature of the afterlife?

To believe that strongly that God does not exist, you need to have the same faith and conviction a religious person needs to believe God exists. You are no better than any religious person.

That’s a real dick way to say it because it implies that atheists think “they’re better” than theists. Like as people. You understand that you’re the one being a dick here, right? You’re making presumptions and I don’t like to have presumptions made about me.

Furthermore, I don’t have faith there’s no god, I trust my ability to understand the world via the senses I have and if they’re not good enough than how would I even know?

Oh, you read books by Dawkins to get your world view? How is that different from reading the Tanakh, the Bible, the Koran, the Veda and Upanishads, the Zend Avesta, or the Tao-te Ching? Through self-reflection you came to this belief? How is that different from meditation or prayer?

uh, because all those books are fairly tales about make-believe characters from ancient mythology and only a child wouldn’t be able to see that’s obvious.

That is why I am agnostic. I have no idea if there is a God or an afterlife until I die, and I’m in no hurry to find out.

I’m confused about you because you think you’re so open to the idea of a god, but your descriptions of the god are very Christian-oriented. You say you have no idea, but you’ve presented tons of your ideas about the nature of god. I suggest you analyze where they come from, kid.

You have a right to believe there is no God. There is nothing wrong with that.

Oh, really, thanks for the fucking permission, I was waiting with baited breath for you to justify my worldview.

You are free to believe whatever you want. But you do not have a right to act smug and superior because of that belief.

Actually I do have the right to act that way. I have to specific right to be as much of a smug prick as I want to be and there’s nothing you can do about it. That right, by the way, is actually the very first right offered to Americans in the Bill of Rights. Are you an American? Do you live in a country with freedom of speech? That’s what a “right’ is, ya know, it refers to your relationship with the law. I have the right to act smug and superior because my beliefs understanding of reality IS superior. What you don’t have the right to do is to swindle, scam and cheat people, commit acts of violence and limit people’s access to public and private services which is all shit religion does all the time. And, by the way, unlike you, when I use the word “the right” I’m actually referring to what that word means and not to your imagined idea of what’s like, polite or some shit.

Source: karnman88

Top