Atheism is losing popularity because it won’t own it’s own sins

[Anonymous]

https://lfpress.com/opinion/columnists/tallman-atheism-deeply-flawed-losing-popularity-because-it-wont-own-its-sins

Justin Brierley, the host of the Unbelievable? podcast which features atheists and Christians in dialogue with each other, likes to thank the new atheists for reviving Christian thought.

Brierley’s new book The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why the New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again is part of a new wave of tomes about how secular thinkers found their way to belief in God through reading criticism of Richard Dawkins.

The new atheism came to be seen as deeply flawed for two main reasons. First, they cherry-picked their approach to religion, by focusing on the worst aspects of religion. Their simplistic approach to religious faith failed to take into account all the good religions have done for centuries, providing billions of people with deep meaning in their lives, pastoral care during hard times, and building charities, hospitals, schools, and universities around the world.

Secondly, they failed to apply their critical standards to themselves. They have not examined the shadow side of atheism, for example atheist political regimes in Soviet Russia and Communist China that slaughtered millions of people. They have not owned their own sin.


I think a lot of young people are looking for something to believe in. I think young people today have the internet, and can research and educate themselves about anything they are interested in, and it’s really a positive of the internet.

I have never listened to this guy’s podcast, but I will in the future. It seems very interesting. He had both Christians and atheists on his podcast.

[Anonymous]

Where is the evidence that "atheism is losing popularity" when we know that the "nones" continue to grow every year?

[Anonymous]

I've long felt that there are two kinds of "religious" people in the world:
1. Those who truly believe.
2. Those who have communal, family and cultural ties to a religion *and its Holidays*, and identify with this religion on surveys.

In reality, I don't think there are many people who have unshakable faith in their holy texts. Most of them belong to category #2, which is a perfectly fine reason to have a religion. They may loosely believe in their god(s), but they don't believe other religions are the enemy, and they're here mostly for their community, because it's always been done this way in their families/ where they live.

With higher education and professional mobility, I feel many people from #1 will slide to #2, and people from #2 will slide to having no particular religious identity. And that's a perfectly normal thing to happen. It's good, in the sense that they realize they can be perfectly decent human beings who give to the needy and live according to basic humanist principles...without declaring allegiance to a particular faith system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the evidence that "atheism is losing popularity" when we know that the "nones" continue to grow every year?

The author claims just because people leave religion doesn’t mean they stop believing in something.

He claims a lot of people have been disenchanted by the new atheist movement and are re-examining religion. The author has multiple articles on this issue.

[Anonymous]

—-> How can an athiest own sins when they don't believe in that?

What do atheists call it when they do something bad? Just insert that word for sin, the point still stands.

[Anonymous]

Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the evidence that "atheism is losing popularity" when we know that the "nones" continue to grow every year?

The author claims just because people leave religion doesn’t mean they stop believing in something.

He claims a lot of people have been disenchanted by the new atheist movement and are re-examining religion. The author has multiple articles on this issue.

Then perhaps the author is confused? Just because atheists reject organized religion or belief in a god, it doesn't mean they refuse to believe in common decency and humane treatment of all peoples and living beings.

I take offense at the underlying notion that atheists are somehow less principled due to having no god.

On the contrary, I believe that owning your actions, and accepting the world is made up of individual acts of free will, can be a scary, and also, liberating, thought. You do good because you have that power. Not because a higher-order being has told you: "here are the rules".

[Anonymous]

Sigh. You view atheism as a belief system, and you want to compare it to your own belief system. You think it's a battle between belief systems for subscribers. Like people choose between Christianity and atheism the way they choose between Netflix and Hulu.

No.

It's more like Christianity is Netflix, Hulu is Islam, Max is Judaism, the Criterion Collection is Buddhism. And atheism is throwing out your TV.

Of course faith has an appeal, even to those who have lived without it. Especially to those who have lived without it. Religion also offers community and people crave that. But religions themselves don't always work within a person's life. It is normal for people to lose faith but then become curious about it again. It's easy to be a skeptic at 22, and it's easier to be a believer at 62.

I think Jews get it right because they support people in losing their faith within the religion. You can tell your own rabbi "I don't believe," and it's fine, you're still Jewish and nothing changes. The religion is about more than just faith, which can be hard to sustain.

Anyway, you are fighting over something that just doesn't work that way. No one is converting to atheism. They just lose faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

Well... we can get into a whole debate here. "Religion" has been the cause of most struggles in history, but the reality is that it's an easy way to label and "other" populations who impinge on your essential resources and trade opportunities. It's so much easier to say: "Look at these awful aliens who believe in X! We hate them!", instead of making the much more ethically-dubious argument of :" Look at the human beings with the same DNA as us, who want to share our water aquifers! We hate them!". Hmm. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

Humans will always go for the easiest differential. Sometimes it's skin color, sometimes it's religion. Rule of thumb: when the label is easy to stick on, it's not the reason for the fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I've long felt that there are two kinds of "religious" people in the world:
1. Those who truly believe.
2. Those who have communal, family and cultural ties to a religion *and its Holidays*, and identify with this religion on surveys.

In reality, I don't think there are many people who have unshakable faith in their holy texts. Most of them belong to category #2, which is a perfectly fine reason to have a religion. They may loosely believe in their god(s), but they don't believe other religions are the enemy, and they're here mostly for their community, because it's always been done this way in their families/ where they live.

With higher education and professional mobility, I feel many people from #1 will slide to #2, and people from #2 will slide to having no particular religious identity. And that's a perfectly normal thing to happen. It's good, in the sense that they realize they can be perfectly decent human beings who give to the needy and live according to basic humanist principles...without declaring allegiance to a particular faith system.

That’s great for you, but that’s not what the author is saying.

He is saying people who were drawn to the new atheists have turned away from them, because the new atheists attacked religion and didn’t acknowledge religion also does positive things in the world and helps people.

Also, he says science doesn’t give people meaning or satisfaction in life, and that people are always going to search for meaning in life. Meaning doesn’t come from attending a church for holidays or cultural experiences.

I believe that humans do search for meaning in life, it’s actually undeniable that they do. If you attend church because of the reasons you have explained, I understand.

But I don’t believe the majority of people are superficially going through life and have no desire to find a deeper meaning and purpose.

Secular humanists cannot deny that their beliefs in human rights, freedom and sacrifice were handed to them by the followers of Jesus, not enlightenment scientists.

[Anonymous]

Atheists don't need religion to tell them right vs. wrong. They don't need divine repercussions if they do wrong. They have an actual moral code that guides them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

Well... we can get into a whole debate here. "Religion" has been the cause of most struggles in history, but the reality is that it's an easy way to label and "other" populations who impinge on your essential resources and trade opportunities. It's so much easier to say: "Look at these awful aliens who believe in X! We hate them!", instead of making the much more ethically-dubious argument of :" Look at the human beings with the same DNA as us, who want to share our water aquifers! We hate them!". Hmm. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

Humans will always go for the easiest differential. Sometimes it's skin color, sometimes it's religion. Rule of thumb: when the label is easy to stick on, it's not the reason for the fight.

Do you have sources that back up your opinions about religion?

I believe you are the type of new atheist the author says people are fleeing from:
atheists who blame everything on religion, and ignore what people who call themselves atheists have done negatively to the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

And as the author points out, communist atheists killed millions and no atheist will explain how that’s not the same thing as they accuse religion of doing.

[Anonymous]

Np. And this folks is why you shouldn't bother trying to discuss logic with anyone religious. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Ha, no. Aside from a very few outliers, there is no “atheism” that is actively trying to recruit or even cares about persuading people to join. There’s nothing TO join. It is not a religion - it is the absence of religion. That said I am
confident that the number of atheists will grow over time given the continued failures of organized religion.