Americans are abandoning religion in ...

Americans are abandoning religion in droves

There are 90 comments on the Ukiah Blog Live story from Sep 21, 2013, titled Americans are abandoning religion in droves. In it, Ukiah Blog Live reports that:

In the two years leading up to his death this past February, the legal and political philosopher Ronald Dworkin was completing a slim volume with a weighty title.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ukiah Blog Live.

LCNLin

United States

#21 Nov 27, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
The dawkins family made money from slavery
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21033...
Interesting article.

Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist (© all newspapers) is, it turns out, an agnostic! What a climbdown! Not so cocky now, eh, professor? In a debate with the magnificently eyebrowed Archbishop of Canterbury, the great evolutionary biologist said that he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, and that he would call himself an agnostic.

Except that Dawkins said exactly that – even down to the "6.9 out of seven" description of his level of surety that there is no God – ages ago. Early on in what is (in my view unjustly) his most famous work, The God Delusion, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist. For that matter, you can't have total certainty that tables, Volkswagens, Adrian Chiles or Bridport exist. You can't, as the philosophers have it, prove that you're not a brain in a jar. But we don't go around in a state of metaphysical doubt about these things; let's face it, we're all pretty happy to assume that the thing we eat our dinner off is really there.
Alas Richard Dawkins moved to the agnostic position
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#22 Nov 27, 2013
Dawkins will move to any position where he smells a dollar
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

#23 Nov 27, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting article.
Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist (© all newspapers) is, it turns out, an agnostic! What a climbdown! Not so cocky now, eh, professor?...
What did you say about atheists here misrepresenting people's views? You are such a hypocrite. Dawkins hasn't changed his position at all, ever. He has been willing to be seen as agnostic or atheist at different times and context, but he has been explicit and consistent that he doesn't believe in gods....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_thei...

Like me, Dawkins has been consistently 6.9 on his scale and always open to reason and evidence.

Religion = superstition
Theology = mythology

LCN & Siro aren't interested in Dawkins views, only in misrepresenting them. It appears his common sense approach to religon are a threat to their idle religious faith. Keep running you two, you've got no more proof of god(s) than of pixies.
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#24 Nov 27, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Dawkins hasn't changed his position at all, ever. He has been willing to be seen as agnostic or atheist at different times and context, but he has been explicit and consistent that he doesn't believe in gods....
But he believes in milking the stooges who worship him.
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Dawkins hasn't changed his position at all, ever. He has been willing to be seen as agnostic or atheist at different times and context,
How can he be consistent when he identifies himself differently depending on the time and context?
So he is either a hustler or a BS artist who makes up crap as he goes along.
Then again he is probably both.
LCNLin

United States

#25 Nov 27, 2013
This is actually old news – Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world’s most famous atheist, discusses atheism vs agnosticism at length in his book, The God Delusion (you can listen to the relevant section here.) In a recent debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, Dawkins acknowledged that he is not 100% certain of God’s non-existence, and when asked if he is therefore an agnostic, he said that he was.
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#26 Nov 27, 2013
Lincunt has now totally reversed his position. Getting too close to siro probably had an affect.
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>What did you say about atheists here misrepresenting people's views? You are such a hypocrite. Dawkins hasn't changed his position at all, ever. He has been willing to be seen as agnostic or atheist at different times and context, but he has been explicit and consistent that he doesn't believe in gods....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_thei...
Like me, Dawkins has been consistently 6.9 on his scale and always open to reason and evidence.
Religion = superstition
Theology = mythology
LCN & Siro aren't interested in Dawkins views, only in misrepresenting them. It appears his common sense approach to religon are a threat to their idle religious faith. Keep running you two, you've got no more proof of god(s) than of pixies.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

#27 Nov 27, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
The dawkins family made money from slavery
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21033...
How desperate are you? The first person in the Dawkins family who owned slaves died in 1701 and the house was purchased in 1726. Also there is not a single white person who doesn't have some family link to someone for the slave trade.

Why did you post this? Were you trying to make an argument on the lines of the atheist argument that "religion is evil because it caused the crusades"? Well guess what you can't. The atheist is based on the idea that there are statements in the bible that call for blood and so any evil done on the basis of those statements can't be ignored by saying "things have moved on". You argument seems to be based on the idea that because someone fell out of a particular woman of a particular bloodline they share the in the sins of the bloodlines members...

You haven't added anything intelligent, and I find it hard to see how both you and the daily mail don't know this. When one places the blame of a evil done hundreds of years ago on a religion, it's because one thinks that religion played a part and you raise a point. But when one points an accusing finger at the descendents of a evil man as if the descendents had a part to play in the crimes of their ancestors, you are basical hating them for having a mother they couldn't choose.
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#28 Nov 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Lincunt has now totally reversed his position. Getting too close to siro probably had an affect.
<quoted text>
Youre becoming a real bore
When are you going to put on your skeptic mask?
It probably dont make much difference because you arent really keeping them with separate personalities.

Hint.... keep your posting M.O.s separate
LCNLin

United States

#29 Nov 27, 2013
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
How desperate are you? The first person in the Dawkins family who owned slaves died in 1701 and the house was purchased in 1726. Also there is not a single white person who doesn't have some family link to someone for the slave trade.
Why did you post this? Were you trying to make an argument on the lines of the atheist argument that "religion is evil because it caused the crusades"? Well guess what you can't. The atheist is based on the idea that there are statements in the bible that call for blood and so any evil done on the basis of those statements can't be ignored by saying "things have moved on". You argument seems to be based on the idea that because someone fell out of a particular woman of a particular bloodline they share the in the sins of the bloodlines members...
You haven't added anything intelligent, and I find it hard to see how both you and the daily mail don't know this. When one places the blame of a evil done hundreds of years ago on a religion, it's because one thinks that religion played a part and you raise a point. But when one points an accusing finger at the descendents of a evil man as if the descendents had a part to play in the crimes of their ancestors, you are basical hating them for having a mother they couldn't choose.
Richard Dawkins is not responsible for his ancestor behavior
He does seem to doubt the religion of atheism ?
Might be thought of as a TV star selling books, for which he has earned a good income.
Billy Gragham look-a-like?
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#30 Nov 27, 2013
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
How desperate are you? The first person in the Dawkins family who owned slaves died in 1701 and the house was purchased in 1726. Also there is not a single white person who doesn't have some family link to someone for the slave trade.
Why did you post this? Were you trying to make an argument on the lines of the atheist argument that "religion is evil because it caused the crusades"? Well guess what you can't. The atheist is based on the idea that there are statements in the bible that call for blood and so any evil done on the basis of those statements can't be ignored by saying "things have moved on". You argument seems to be based on the idea that because someone fell out of a particular woman of a particular bloodline they share the in the sins of the bloodlines members...
You haven't added anything intelligent, and I find it hard to see how both you and the daily mail don't know this. When one places the blame of a evil done hundreds of years ago on a religion, it's because one thinks that religion played a part and you raise a point. But when one points an accusing finger at the descendents of a evil man as if the descendents had a part to play in the crimes of their ancestors, you are basical hating them for having a mother they couldn't choose.
Blah blah blah........
Atheists are always the first to rail against racism and support all sorts of left wing crap.
And then you fart this out...."You argument seems to be based on the idea that because someone fell out of a particular woman of a particular bloodline they share the in the sins of the bloodlines members..."

Welllllllll????
What have you done to compensate black people?
Now you will say that you owe nothing, and yet you and your fellow hypocrites will bitch about "white privilege" and that all black americans must get reparations and that all blacks must be given affirmative action jobs in govt.
And the cause of all evil in the world is white christianity, white finance and republican voting middle aged men.
And of course the evil racist white society is to blame.
In your shrink wrapped mind, all white people are racist oppressors, all of them........except atheists.

So tell me why dawkins should get a free pass when your filthy ilk has decided all white govts, institutions, societies and people are collectively guilty of racism and a dozen other types of ism?
How many blacks have you got living with you?
How many do you employ?
Nah......thought not........
Siro

Brisbane, Australia

#31 Nov 27, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Richard Dawkins is not responsible for his ancestor behavior
He does seem to doubt the religion of atheism ?
Might be thought of as a TV star selling books, for which he has earned a good income.
Billy Gragham look-a-like?
How does this sound?
Dawkins money starts to dry up, he asks a talent agent what he can do for him. The talent agent says that his atheist run is over and that the agnostic thing will eventually dry up too.
The talent agent then says if Dawkins becomes a Christian he will make an ocean of money, print about 40 books, be in demand on TV constantly and so on.
Would I put it past dawkins to pull such a stunt just to make money?
No I wouldnt
Maybe the 'soft' dawkins is just a prep job for him
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

#32 Nov 27, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
...How can he be consistent when he identifies himself differently depending on the time and context?
So he is either a hustler or a BS artist who makes up crap as he goes along....
Because religionists are inconsistent. We have people here telling atheists insist there is no gods, etc. It is not Dawkins that is inconsistent, it is religionist ignorance and confusion of thought, as you and LCN demonstrate.

Religion = superstition
Get over it
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#33 Nov 27, 2013
Correct, Dawkins is not the inconsistent one.

siro tries on new religions like hats.
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Because religionists are inconsistent. We have people here telling atheists insist there is no gods, etc. It is not Dawkins that is inconsistent, it is religionist ignorance and confusion of thought, as you and LCN demonstrate.
Religion = superstition
Get over it
LCNLin

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#34 Nov 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Correct, Dawkins is not the inconsistent one.
siro tries on new religions like hats.
<quoted text>
You Whine a great deal?
LOL
Thinking

Windsor, UK

#35 Nov 27, 2013
Next siro will claim the ancestors of Atheists caused the crusades.
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
How desperate are you? The first person in the Dawkins family who owned slaves died in 1701 and the house was purchased in 1726. Also there is not a single white person who doesn't have some family link to someone for the slave trade.
Why did you post this? Were you trying to make an argument on the lines of the atheist argument that "religion is evil because it caused the crusades"? Well guess what you can't. The atheist is based on the idea that there are statements in the bible that call for blood and so any evil done on the basis of those statements can't be ignored by saying "things have moved on". You argument seems to be based on the idea that because someone fell out of a particular woman of a particular bloodline they share the in the sins of the bloodlines members...
You haven't added anything intelligent, and I find it hard to see how both you and the daily mail don't know this. When one places the blame of a evil done hundreds of years ago on a religion, it's because one thinks that religion played a part and you raise a point. But when one points an accusing finger at the descendents of a evil man as if the descendents had a part to play in the crimes of their ancestors, you are basical hating them for having a mother they couldn't choose.
Pope Vigilius was right

Concord, CA

#36 Nov 27, 2013
The universe is what it is. Science is getting a progressively clearer picture of it and it does not match the picture of a goofy Cosmos with a god of good and a god of evil that hate based religions have painted over the centuries.

The word "god" is a word that means different things to different people

People have killed and died in defense of their personal definition of this poorly defined word and the thousands of religions based on it.

Instead of looking for proof for a vague confusing word in a book written long ago,

Why not learn as much as you can about the world around you today?

You won't find what you were looking for in ancient dogma but you just might find something even better if you allow yourself to witness the LOVE unfolding all around you!

You can't prove that LOVE is real but you can experience it in your life. No words are needed. Just the smile of a baby watching a puppy play says it all.

More and more people are rejecting the hate based religions of their youth and embracing the wonderful reality of our being just us!

JOIN US!
Cujo

Regina, Canada

#37 Nov 27, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
The dawkins family made money from slavery
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21033...
Australia, huh? Then your ancestors must have been criminals, sent from England, which obviously makes you a criminal, right?

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

#38 Nov 27, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Richard Dawkins is not responsible for his ancestor behavior
He does seem to doubt the religion of atheism ?
Might be thought of as a TV star selling books, for which he has earned a good income.
Billy Gragham look-a-like?
"Richard Dawkins is not responsible for his ancestor behavior" oh my what a groundbreaking statement...

"He does seem to doubt the religion of atheism ?" Atheism isn't even an ideology yet alone a religion.

"Might be thought of as a TV star selling books, for which he has earned a good income." He isn't a celebrity, sure he has got a lot of money selling books but he hasn't reached celebrity status (though he has a times gotten uncomfortably close...).

"Billy Gragham look-a-like?" What the F***!? What point are you trying to make..?

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

#39 Nov 27, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
How does this sound?
Dawkins money starts to dry up, he asks a talent agent what he can do for him. The talent agent says that his atheist run is over and that the agnostic thing will eventually dry up too.
The talent agent then says if Dawkins becomes a Christian he will make an ocean of money, print about 40 books, be in demand on TV constantly and so on.
Would I put it past dawkins to pull such a stunt just to make money?
No I wouldnt
Maybe the 'soft' dawkins is just a prep job for him
"Dawkins money starts to dry up, he asks a talent agent what he can do for him. The talent agent says that his atheist run is over and that the agnostic thing will eventually dry up too." He has a day job you know, he is the professor for public understanding of science a chair in the University of Oxford. Dawkins isn't an actor or a singer, they at some point in their careers will have to do anything for money. Dawkins however has an academic background (which is how he became famous in the first place) so when he no longer makes waves he will go back to being completely academic.
And as for "the agnostic thing will eventually dry up too" no it won't. So long as most religions do and believe stupid and evil thing there will always be room for man like Dawkins.

"The talent agent then says if Dawkins becomes a Christian he will make an ocean of money, print about 40 books, be in demand on TV constantly and so on." OH FOR F***'S SAKE! Where do I begin... He isn't constantly on TV even now, and do you really think that a man who is atheist after spending so long against the mainstream would suddenly join it? Even if we assume that Dawkins is a good for nothing lying scumbag no isn't gong to do that! When a lier makes money off being with mainstream he will always be in the mainstream, and when a lier makes money off being against the mainstream he will always be against the mainstream.

"Maybe the 'soft' dawkins is just a prep job for him" I'm sorry what "soft dawkins" do you mean how everyone was amazed when said the he did not believe that God doesn't exist but simply disbelieved? No, thats not Dawkins softening up he was always like that people just assumed things about him (and still do).

Since: Jul 12

Buffalo, NY

#40 Nov 27, 2013
True Christian witness wrote:
People who leave false religion because they see the fake hypocrisy are fulfilling Bible prophecy for these last days, and they are obeying God's will for his people. Only People who want to belong to Jehovah God, will learn and become his heavenly Kingdom subjects and survive to live in God's new world of righteousness soon to be here.
Revelation 18:4
You are much better off without any religion, than to be a hypocrite before Jehovah God and his reigning King Jesus who is going to have all false religions destroyed at the great tribulation, soon to be here.
Matthew 24:11-21
We cannot have God's new world of no more war, crime, sickness or tears and all the animals tame and content, unless this world ruled by Satan the Devil is gone forever, now is the time to study your Bible with Jehovah's witnesses so you can be educated in God's will for us today or you can pass away with this world at Armageddon, soon to be here.
John 17:3
I'm sorry to tell you, if you are of the christian faith of Jehovah Witness then you are in for a surprise also. I know for a true fact that men join the witnesses in order to have sex with the women who house they have visited after coming out of the field as you call the door to door visit that your religion does so they can recruit others. The majority of these men learn the Bible from the church and use that knowledge to make an impression on innocent people. The other reason they have in mind to join that religion is it is a scape goat from sharing money to buy gifts for holidays and anniversaries. Yes, the man is stingy in the first place so why not become a Jehovah Witness and be spared from name calling words such as selfish, stingy or uncaring. I know a man with at least seven brothers and they have Bible study among each other. They compare notes to keep up with Bible quotes and the next game they are going to play. They are not a uniform cult or nothing like that at all. They are your usual men being whores. This man namely A...n Foster has spread this pimping game for more than 40 years and he is still happy, go lucky strong. Has a baby in almost every household. Before you say I must be a scorned ex-girl or wife, NO I AM NOT! I told men in my family to copy him, because no one considers the Jehovah Witnesses a religion. I'M SORRY, but I have this deep feeling inside that you all knows this and have been knowing it for years. The religion is designed to have men cather in a underhanded slick way in the name of religion.

My point is, there must be another way to be apart of this religion. You can't stop a man or matter-of-fact woman from having a roaming eye. If the house is nice and the person in the house looks nice who wouldn't come back to see where they could fit in??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 min Uncle Sam 243,017
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 min Eagle 12 9,174
Atheists have morals too! 1 hr Amused 4
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Secret Admirer 19,741
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 12 hr lozzza 6,160
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Mon Thinking 15
News Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion Jun 28 QUITTNER Jne 28 2015 53
More from around the web