To the believers: to what to you attribute the growth in Atheism?

[brooklynite]

Logically, one side of the argument is right and one is wrong. Since you were convinced, why do you think a growing number of people don't see the same evidence you did?

[northoftheborder]

1. Growth of unbelievers IMHO has been influenced by the....

....hatred, ignorance, predjudice of the Right Wing Christians who have attempted to force their beliefs on the nation and world. The Christians who are unselfish, loving, accepting people assemble quietly out of the news headlines and have less influence, unfortunately.

[narnian60]

8. +100.

Well said.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

15. I couldn't agree more.

As a believer I am appalled at how judgmental "Christians" are. My job, as I see it, is to show Christ's love in everything I do. If others choose not to accept my beliefs, it doesn't affect what I perceive my job to be. Respect is everything.

[hrmjustin]

20. Sounds about right to me.

[sweetloukillbot]

76. I put it all on the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals

Not only like you're saying, but I think the atmosphere of intolerance they are raising their kids in drives them away from the church and God when they go to college and discover that gay people aren't the devil.

[Freddie]

2. Hate in the name of Christianity

The rise of the religious right and the hatred for women, gays and the poor that goes along with it. My son is one of the many atheists who can't see (or refuse to acknowledge) a difference between a liberal Christian like myself and the Fundie nutjobs. I will exit the discussion now because it never ends well.

[cbayer]

10. Does your son post here? Not sure what to call those people, but he could

find a few of them here.

[longship]

3. Well, the "growth" may be, in part, only a perception.

First, I am a lifelong atheist. But I went to church for the first 13 years of my life because my family went. I received a fairly good religious education, but I never really believed it.

I think that part of the growth of non-believers is an artifact of people becoming more comfortable professing their non-belief. They always were non-believers, but it was culturally unpopular to say so, until recently.

I am with Dawkins on this. It was 9/11 which was a trigger point. It certainly was why Dawkins' book went to press. The success of the four horsemen (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett) opened things up for other non-believers. Others books followed, most notably Victor Stenger.

It gave comfort to many people who previously kept their non-belief in gods to themselves.

However, what is telling in the latest statistics is that the younger people are far more likely to profess non-belief. So there is some change in culture which is giving rise to the increase.

I suggest that it is the perceived intolerance of fundementalists of all stripe, and the disgusting way politics has been co-opted by the religious right. The latter is very scary to me, as it undoubtedly is to many. We don't want those people to gain power.

[cbayer]

11. I agree with you that the level of discomfort with identifying as an atheist is

diminishing in some ways. I see more and more people choosing agnostic, but don't have any recent data on that.

I predict that the term "apatheist" may become more common, as many don't want to be associated with either theists or atheists.

[cbayer]

5. There has been little growth in the numbers of atheists.

What there has been is a significant rise in the "unaffiliated".





http://www.pewforum.org/unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Where "little growth" is 50% increase in atheists over five years.

But it is just the facts you posted and the odd interpretation you gave to them. So feel free to post a completely contradictory follow up.

[cbayer]

9. Technically correct, but going from 1.6% to 2.4% over 5 years is hardly rapid growth.

I have no idea what you mean by completely contradictory follow, but I am here to learn.

[trotsky]

14. If you understood the difference between percentages and amounts,

you'd perhaps be able to appreciate the stats for what they mean.

Instead, you use them as a club to hurt others - to dismiss the growth of atheism and trivialize the concerns of the non-religious.

Stay classy, cbayer.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Ah and there is the goalpost shift.

When confronted with the "technical facts" that refute your assertion, facts from your own data, you tack off to a new attempt to portray the data as something it isn't. Generally speaking, a 50% growth rate in a population is "rapid". What will be your new term for the same nonsense?

First attempt: There has been little growth in the numbers of atheists.
Second attempt: hardly rapid growth.
Third attempt: _____

[cbayer]

18. OMG, a logical fallacy thingamajig!

I just love those, don't you? There real conversation stoppers.

[cleanhippie]

35. Nice projection.

The only conversation stopper is your inability to be honest about the facts.

[Phillip McCleod]

50. true the growth is modest

but at least our numbers aren't going down, as they are across the board for the religious numbers.

[cbayer]

56. Yay team!! This isn't a team sport, you know.

Atheists sure do talk about "we" and "us" and "our" a lot for a group that insists they are not a group.

There is clear evidence that many are leaving organized religions and joining the ranks of the nones. Many of these may eventually call themselves atheists or agnostics and many may return to new/improved religious institutions. They seem to be a group in flux.

I tend to think the rise in the atheist numbers may have more to do a growing acceptance of atheism and a resulting increasing comfort with identifying as such, but I'm not sure.

[Phillip McCleod]

63. so we have found solidarity and you don't like it.

i am not apologizing. i'm stating a fact.

[cbayer]

66. Why in the world would I not like solidarity? I like it very much, in fact,

unless it is being done to try and destroy other who feel or think differently.

I just find the dual arguments interesting. On the one hand, many non-believers adamantly state that they are not part of any group and the only thing they have in common is their lack of belief, but, at least on this site, they talk more in the first person plural than the believers.

It's the team sport mindset. The one where there must be a winner and loser. You will even see actual sports analogies here. That's just dumb.

[Fumesucker]

71. A lot of us see the theists as far more into trying to destroy those who disagree

Just the very fact that many people are uncomfortable with even mentioning their atheism would indicate there is some reason for them to feel that way.

On the other hand I don't recall meeting Christians who are uncomfortable mentioning their religion, often just the opposite, they can't shut up about it.

[cbayer]

72. Oh, I am aware of how a lot of you see things.

And I fully acknowledge that there is and has been true prejudice, but also recognize that that is changing.

You are dead wrong in your last sentence, though. Because the religious right completely co-opted the term christian and it became strongly associated with anti-GLBT/women issues, there are many christians who are very uncomfortable. That is also due to a prejudice.

[kentauros]

64. Thank you for pointing out the bit about "unaffiliated."

For some weird reason, the media (and others) report "unaffiliated" or "nones" as meaning "atheist" when that's not it at all. Any lack of religious affiliation does not solely mean a lack of belief. It's lazy reporting at its worst.

[cbayer]

65. The initial reporting on this did put this group in with atheist/agnostic, but

that has become less common as people really looked at the numbers. It's a very interesting group that could become quite significant both politically and socially.

[kentauros]

67. That's good people are looking at the numbers.

The problem will remain, though, that the religious will continue to interpret "none" as meaning "atheist" because they won't look any further than the initial report.

Something that would help atheists/agnostics in their promotion of these figures would be to put those percentages in real numbers. I don't know what they are from the info given above, but if applied to the country's population, I would get a starting figure of 5,280,000, now going up to 7,920,000. You could explain to people that's like having a large city of nothing but atheists and agnostics (or use cities with comparable populations as examples.)

People would get that and be less dismissive of hearing "oh, we went up 50%, from 1.6% to 2.4%!" Most people are going to laugh at figures like that. Real numbers of people counted as atheist/agnostic would help get the point across easier and with far more impact

[cbayer]

68. Actually, I think it is organized religious groups that are paying attention to

the actual numbers. Many are seeing it as an opportunity to look at how they do things and rethink what might be meaningful to this group which they might supply.

The numbers are from the last large PEW survey and you can look at the numbers here:

http://www.pewforum.org/unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

I do not deny that there has been a rise in the number of people who identify as atheist, but I wonder if this is a reflection of it become more socially acceptable, which would be a good thing in my mind.

[kentauros]

69. Thanks for the link :)

I may not read all of it as, while I am of the "nones", I'm neither atheist nor agnostic. My beliefs just aren't easily categorized or labeled, and they're ever-evolving

You're right about it being more socially acceptable. The Internet plays a big part there, whether in online forums or through the advent of Meet-Up groups.

[lunasun]

7. more access to education- acquiring more knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning&judgment

of course if all the RWC like in TX have their way this will stop with the next generation!!

Often although not always, the less religious you are the more you will ask questions and try to find out information, and often the more religious you are, the more you believe that things are the way that they are because God made it like that and the questions are not needed or even heretical.

However, on the other hand ,in the end many looking for answers acknowledge their belief in some form for lack of better words, of a higher, or universal conciousness they did not seek when starting on their quest for answers.

So depends on the evidence you are seeking I suppose



"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.....
What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism....
The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man......
To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.......
True religion is real living; living with all one’s soul, with all one’s goodness and righteousness."
- A. Einstein(all quotes)

[cbayer]

12. Nice post. I think your analysis of why some people are seekers is interesting.

I guess it all depends on the questions you are asking.

[cbayer]

13. This is hilarious. It's look like you are primarily getting answer from non-believers.

Who would have predicted that?

[trotsky]

17. It would be really nice, cbayer, for all your talk about respecting and listening to each other...

if you would actually heed your own words. Be the change you want. Quit mocking and insulting non-believers. Try acting like the superior individual you think you are.

[kwassa]

33. Pot. Kettle. Black.

[trotsky]

34. Change the tone, kwassa.

Nothing stopping you from being more civil, either.

[skepticscott]

19. Gee...what happened to

forming "alliances" and "coalitions" and working with "diverse" groups of "liberals" and "progressives" of "all stripes" toward "shared goals"?




Apparently you feel there is nothing to learn on this issue from anyone but your fellow religionistas (whose absent responses have nothing to do with non-believers chiming in).

[trotsky]

22. It's funny, in a way...

that cbayer is answering the question in the OP through her behavior. Atheism is on the increase partly because of attitudes like hers - a haughty arrogance that non-believers don't really matter. But we do matter - there are more atheists in the US than Jews and Muslims combined. She wouldn't dare insult those faiths because of her alleged dedication to building coalitions, however atheists are fair game, as we have seen and continue to see. The hypocrisy is appalling.

[goldent]

21. Well, I'd sort of expect non-believers to respond more.

In my case, I got some bad vibes from the followup statement "logically one side is right and one side of wrong"

[cbayer]

23. Exactly. That reads like flame bait, so it's not surprising that it is going this way.

[skepticscott]

24. To some, anything that doesn't presume

that everyone on both sides of any argument is just as correct as everyone else, and that every opinion, claim and point of view is equally valid, is flamebait.

But you're the only one flaming here, cbayer. Look in the mirror.

[skepticscott]

25. Bad vibes from that? Are you serious?

Logically, either A or not A is true, but both cannot be in this case. Either the god someone believes in has a real, physical, objective existence, or it doesn't. Those are the two sides.

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. I'm perplexed as to why you posed the question to believers in the first place...

... unless you're going to surprise us with an essay on the actor-observer bias, I really don't see the point.

Don't think you non-believers would be more qualified to answer the question?

[Silent3]

26. Alien anti-god mind rays

Prove that I'm wrong!

[BlueStreak]

27. "Growth in Atheism" seems like an odd turn of phrase

Not believing in the supernatural (witches, incantations, gods, spirits) is not itself a belief system.

I don't believe that lead can turn to gold. That doesn't mean I am part of some sort of "ism" against turning lead to gold. If there is ever any evidence that lead can turn to gold, then I will certainly consider that. Until that happens, I am not going to run around believing in nonsense.

Refusing to worship nonsense doesn't make a person a part of an "ism". And it certainly doesn't make me part of a growing movement. There is no movement There is no church of atheism. If more people are deciding to stop believing things that are not rational, that is a good thing, but it isn't an "ism". It is simply called intelligence.

[truebluegreen]

28. +100

Thank you!

[brooklynite]

31. I'm not clear what your point is...

ATHEISM is a definitional term for "the disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". If you don't believe in God, you are an ATHEIST, whether you choose to publicly define yourself that way or as a FREETHINKER or NONE or SKEPTIC or not at all. My point and question is that the number of people self-defined as Atheists is rising. Since the existence of God(s) is factually true or not, my question to the self-identified Theists (without any implied criticism of their opinion) is: why do you believe a growing number of people believe differently than you?

[BlueStreak]

32. Absense of a belief is not an "ism"

"ism" implies a formal organization / dogma / system, and that does not exist with speaking of rational thinkers.

My point, admittedly pedantic, is that the language has become bastardized, and that is intentional, I believe. People who believe in gods and goblins want to create the image of an organized army of "atheists" that are actively seeking to destroy the Good Christian Soldiers.

The root of this bastardization is etymological. "Theist" makes perfect sense. The theist does follow a particular doctrine in an organized, coordinated manner. The "atheist" does not. The word is simply a combination of theist with the prefix "a" meaning "not a theist". But those who want to paint themselves as martyrs personalize that by morphing that into "atheism", with the "ism" implying an organized belief system against the normal worship of the supernatural. But once again, that word is really just a combination of "theism" with the prefix "a", meaning "not a theology".

So my point is simply that the notion of "atheists growing in numbers" paints a false picture of an army of "atheists" out there evangelizing for their own theology. And that simply is not the case. There is no Church of the Guiding Non-God or such out there. There is no Sunday School for Non-Worshipers. And so on. Absence of a dogma is not itself a dogma.

[cbayer]

38. What about the growing number organizaed groups representing atheists and

other nonbelievers? There was recently an article posted here about the growing number of organizations on college campuses that got a lot of positive feedback.

What about the big market for books and speaking tours by some of the more vocal atheists?

There, is, in fact a growing movement of "Sunday School" services for non-belivers, both here and in the UK.

And there are divisions within the "New Atheist" movement representing different philosophical perspectives and internal politics.

Should it be called something else?

[BlueStreak]

39. I'm glad to see that. But most free thinkers are not affiliated with them.

Whereas virtually all theists identify as part of some formal creed, if not a specific congregation.

There is nothing for me to identify with. It is like being in favor of oxygen. OK, I admit I am in favor of oxygen because that's simply the way the world is and we can't live without it. But that doesn't make me an active advocate of oxygen.

I recognize that we see the sun (almost) every day but that doesn't make me a sun worshiper, or part of some organized group that meets to discuss the virtues of the sun.

[cbayer]

40. What's the definition of a "free thinker"?

The number of "unaffiliated" is the fastest growing demographic. Many of these people describe themselves as theists or spiritual or even religious, but they are not associated with a formal creed, let alone a congregation.

While it appears that you identify as an atheist and are unaffiliated, that is a changing trend.

So, again I ask, is there a better term?

[BlueStreak]

41. Rational people

[cbayer]

42. So, are you saying that anyone that is religious or a theist is irrational?

[BlueStreak]

43. Yes, by definition.

You can believe in things that have no basis in facts. Or you can be rational. You cannot be both.

It is, as they say, a lifestyle choice.

I don't care which you choose as long as you don't try to impose your choice on me.

[cbayer]

44. So Obama and Biden are both irrational?

MLK was irrational? Darwin was irrational? Galileo was irrational?

There is a big difference between saying people can believe what they want as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others, but saying they are irrational for what they believe is quite a leap.

[BlueStreak]

45. Biden for sure. Not positive about Obama (bot don't tell anybody) :)

Seriously. 99.9% of the politicians believe they have to act like they are Christians, even if their lives have nothing in common with Jesus. It is just an unfortunate reality of where the country is in 2013. If the trend postulated by this thread continues, maybe in another 25 years we won't expect the drunken crooks and cheats that run for office to "walk the plank for Jesus" so to speak.

I'm not speaking specifically about Obama or Biden there. I'm sure everyone can easily come up with a long list of politicians who were/are thoroughly immoral, yet they can deliver the "God Bless America" line at the drop of a hat. It is just part of the job, like kissing babies. One does what it takes.

I hope and trust that both Biden and Obama are able to compartmentalize their irrationality so that they are able to handle their governance with as much rational thought as they can muster.

Coincidentally, somebody sent me a video this morning of Ronald Reagan talking about how many times the job "drove me to my knees". I find that a horrifying thought, personally. But then I remembered it was Reagan, and he was just

[cbayer]

46. Well, I disagree with some, but not all, of what you say.

I think it's as irrational to make a definitive statement that there is no god as it is to make one that there is a god. Since no one knows, and it is highly likely that no one will ever know, one's beliefs or lack of beliefs really has nothing to do with rationality.

Belief systems can guide people towards good and evil. And they can be used to further either of these as well.

Anyone that thinks they have the only answer and that everyone that disagrees with them is irrational, is, well, irrational.

I don't think that Obama and Biden are feigning belief for political purposes, but I don't know that for sure. However, if their religious beliefs assist them in endorsing and furthering a political agenda that I also endorse, then I'm all for it.

[BlueStreak]

47. I didn't say I have the right answer. I simply insist on the correct use of the word "rational"

Here are various definitions:

Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "a rational explanation".

Having reason or understanding

Consistent with or based on reason; logical

Based on or in accordance with reason or logic e.g. "I’m sure there’s a perfectly rational explanation"

Able to think sensibly or logically

Endowed with the capacity to reason:

Faith is the opposite of reason. If faith works for you, that's OK with me, but I don't accept anybody calling faith rational. That is not what the word means.

If you are a person of faith, then own your faith. Don't try to "rationalize" it.

[cbayer]

48. The problem is in the term irrational.

I will take issue with calling all people with religious beliefs irrational. Neither theism or atheism is really rational by your definition. But those who feel the need to label other who see things differently as somehow deficient or inferior can have at it.

I don't see anyone arguing here that faith is necessarily rational, but it exists outside of religion and everyone has some to one extent or another.

[trotsky]

49. If faith isn't rational, then it is irrational.

Why does it upset you so much to acknowledge what you yourself have posted?

[cleanhippie]

51. Because acknowledgment means accepting one is closer to the fundies than they admit.

[SpartanDem]

53. So atheism* is also irrational

by your own definition because there is no proof that god/s to not exist. If belief with out facts is irrational then atheism is irrational. I can not see any evidence that god/s exist, but neither it has been show they doesn't exist. Really at their core atheism and theism are irrational, because they're based on assumptions. Agnosticism on the other hand is rational because it's based in simple observation of the world.

*I know there's philosophical overlap between atheism and agnosticism, but for the sake of simplicity I'm using the basic/common definition.

[BlueStreak]

55. No. That's the point. "Atheism" is not a belief system

It is simply a conviction that the things we believe must be supported by some reasonable amount of evidence. And that is the essence of being rational.

I don't believe in UFOs (although there has at least been some evidence of that.)

I don't believe in witches' incantations.

I don't believe in gods.

I don't believe the moon is made of green cheese.

I don't believe in reincarnation.

I don't believe in astrology.

I don't believe in cold fusion.

I don't believe in Sasquatch.

But if there is ever any solid evidence that any of these could be true, I'll eagerly look at that evidence.

[cbayer]

57. Do you believe in love? Do you have any solid evidence for it?

[BlueStreak]

58. Yes. There is good evidence of love.

It is not hard to find examples of love, happiness, and sympathy. Feelings are not the same as beliefs.

There is plenty of evidence that millions of people feel more secure when they believe in gods and supernatural saviors. That is real, and easily demonstrated. But evidence of the gods themselves? No. That seems to be imaginary. I'm thinking that, like UFOs, if there were gods in this game, there would be some clear evidence by now.

I don't doubt that you feel more secure when surrounded by others who share your belief system. And if that is what you need to get through the day, I'm OK with it. It is probably healthier than drinking a 5th of Scotch or a lot of other things that people do to get through this vale of tears.

[cbayer]

59. You make a lot of assumptions about me.

Where is your evidence for those assumptions?

Or are those just your beliefs? And do they make you feel more secure?

[BlueStreak]

61. The evidence is in your posts

Yes, there are some assumptions. We don't require absolute proof in order to reach some conclusions. But a rational person does require some evidence, and then remains alert for more evidence that either supports or contradicts. In the case of the supernatural, there just isn't any evidence at all that can be observed, recorded, or measured. It is truly a matter of faith.

And that is why I find it so curious that people who believe in the "Holy Ghost" hold each other in such high esteem, whereas they often turn their noses up at people who believe in other things without evidence, such as witchcraft, astrology, miracles, voices from beyond, reincarnation, UFOs etc.

I am an equal opportunity skeptic. I look upon all these irrational belief systems the same way. And if there is ever any evidence that can be observed, measured, recorded, or repeated, I remain open to changing my mind.

[cbayer]

62. What evidence? I am not just like you, so I must be one of "them"?

Being a skeptic is not a problem. Being prejudiced against those that see things differently is, IMO.

[cleanhippie]

74. Yawn. You toss out yet ANOTHER nonsensical analogy and then play the victim when called on it.

That is a trick straight from the apologist playbook.

[cleanhippie]

73. Uh. no. Atheism is the LACK OF belief in a god.

It is the rejection of the premise that there IS a god by theists because there is no evidence to support such an irrational claim.


But feel free to define it however it makes YOU feel good, because that is what's important.

[SpartanDem]

75. That's how SOME define it

and that not it's commonly defined. Certainly some atheist would be in the “believing there is no deity” category.

[cleanhippie]

78. Again, feel free to determine your own definition.

The "a" before "theist" literally means "without" and "theist" literally means "belief in a deity".


A-theist - without (lack of) belief in a deity.

And yes, that is how most who self-identify as atheist define themselves.


YMMV.

[truegrit44]

52. The most sensible post so far +1

[AndyA]

29. It's the religious double standard

They pick and choose what they decide to believe. Homosexuality is bad, a woman's choice to choose whether or not to give birth is bad, contraception is bad, etc., etc., etc. But it's OK to judge others, condemn them, and spew hatred about them, as long as it conveniently fits what they choose to believe.

Add to that, the hypocrisy and criminal acts of the Catholic Church--which seems to be getting bigger and worse as they days pass--and people realize that if this is what Christianity is, they want no part of it.

Also, organized religion doesn't seem to be commenting on the hatred and condemnation, so do they approve of it? Endorse it? Encourage it? From what some preachers have said and done recently, you have to wonder if they're just a wild weed or they're the only ones speaking up about it.

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people I know who identify themselves as religious Christians say hateful things and condemn people for what they feel are sins, but apparently don't see that what they're doing is just as bad.

[dballance]

30. Well, Maybe the Desire to Quite Living in the Iron Age is a Factor.

The desire to quit believing in and propagating the mythologies from a couple of thousand years ago and longer probably has some affect.

You forget that everyone is an atheist. Dictionary.com defines atheist as:
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So we're all atheists with respect to someone else's religion. Most of us are atheists with respect to the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and other ancient "gods" (aka supreme being(s)). Jews and Christians are atheists with respect to the Hindu Gods as are the Hindu atheists with respect to the Judeo-Christian God. There is some disagreement as to whether the God of Islam and the Judeo-Christian God are the same or not. So I have neither grouped Islam with Jews/Christians and their God nor separated it out in an effort to not offend anyone. It is not my intention to ignore Islam. I'm just not educated enough to speak of it without fear of being offensive in my ignorance.

As more and more people have access to education and to other cultures and religions the trend you see is what happens. People start making comparisons, start asking questions, and then make up their own mind rather than blindly follow a rabbi, imam, minister or priest. These religious leaders are fighting a losing battle. They can't expect people to read a religious text and ignore obvious contradictions in errors in it when they compare the text to what is actually observed in the real world.

[TygrBright]

37. I hope it's related to several factors:

First and foremost would be the dedicated activism by Atheists to make people aware of the alternatives to Theist worldviews, and to advance the equal civil and social rights of Atheists.

A secondary factor would be the increasing availability of communications channels for people to explore, expound, and refine their philosophical and moral frameworks.

A third factor might be the vast amounts of publicity given to Theists making cruel and bigoted asses of themselves in the name of their God(s) of choice.

I still live in hope that my great-grandchildren will see a world where people freely share and acknowledge the value of all forms of philosophical profession.

I admit it's an idealistic hope and highly unlikely to be fulfilled. But I do believe we can make a few millimeters of progress in that direction if we keep trying.

wistfully,
Bright

[Meshuga]

54. It should not matter when belief is personal

The growing population of "atheists" will only matter if the believer wishes to convince others to believe as he/she believes. In this case, the believer is losing the battle. Otherwise, why should the believer be concerned?

[pinto]

60. Comfortability in answering poll questions and self-identifying ?

[Nye Bevan]

70. The brilliant and persuasive pro-atheist advertising campaigns.

[bmbmd]

77. Maybe it is "The Great Falling Away" described in scripture.

Here's a conservative view of the phenomenon.

http://www.biblefood.com/falling.html

[struggle4progress]

79. Gonna go out onna limb here, but Imma gonna guess it's due to more atheists

[DeadEyeDyck]

80. The biblical answer would be that it

Is a sign of the end times.

Of course, your mileage may differ.