Analysis: Atheism worldwide in decline

[Macfistowannabe]

Analysis: Atheism worldwide in decline

By Uwe Siemon-Netto
UPI Religious Affairs Editor

Gurat, France, Mar. 1 (UPI) -- There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe that godlessness is in trouble. "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday.

His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today.

Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.

Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance."

As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.

For the full article: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050301-123015-2069r.htm

 

[melon]

I can't tell whether this is an actual news article or a propaganda campaign by the Moonies (they own UPI and the Washington Times).

Either way, an awful lot of opinions here are being presented as "fact."

Melon

 

[deep]

absolutists that claim to "know the truth" and exclude other possibilities
should be on the decline at both extremes,
if we can only rise above our arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I can't tell whether this is an actual news article or a propaganda campaign by the Moonies (they own UPI and the Washington Times).

Either way, an awful lot of opinions here are being presented as "fact."

Possibly, it seems to have a conservative Christian bias.

 

[Judah]

I'm an athiest.

The only reason that athiests are in decline is because God is killing them.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I'm an athiest.

The only reason that athiests are in decline is because God is killing them.

If you believe God doesn't exist, how is he responsible for killing anyone?

 

[all_i_want]

i sensed some irony there

 

[financeguy]

"Analysis" - what analysis?

If you read the detailed article, the "analysis" consists of the opinions of two theologians, that's it.

As Melon said opinion is being put forward as fact and no numbers or stats to speak of are cited to support the unsubstantiated claim that "atheism world-wide is in decline."

 

[nbcrusader]

"Analysis" - what analysis?

If you read the detailed article, the "analysis" consists of the opinions of two theologians, that's it.

As Melon said opinion is being put forward as fact and no numbers or stats to speak of are cited to support the unsubstantiated claim that "atheism world-wide is in decline."

Okay, it is set forth as theory, not a measurable fact.

But is the theory correct, wrong, or just inconclusive?

 

[coemgen]

Melon's right, UPI sucks and is owned by a cult leader.

Deep — if truth is absolute, how can one who believes in this truth be arrogant or ignorant? I think it's ignorant to treat "truth" like it's in fashion and arrogant to create your own truth based on nothing, which a lot of people do. (I'm not saying you do any of this)

 

[melon]

If atheism is defined by a complete lack of belief in anything, then yes, I would say that atheism is in decline, partly because there's a lot more "nuance" in religious belief now. Liberal to mainline Christians nowadays have no problem believing in full scientific theory while also believing in God, while, in the past, they may have felt that they had to choose between knowledge and religious belief. In addition, a lot of those who would be atheist in the past have now just turned to "alternative religious" beliefs like New Age / Wiccan religions. There's even a contingent of "neo-Druids" now.

My beef with the article is that it gets a bit preachy and starts assuming that it's "Christianity" or nothing at all. And sure, while we're probably on the tail end of Christian fundamentalist growth in the U.S., other nations don't often find fundamentalism particularly attractive.

I don't know. I think the article was a bit sloppy, and the theologians they used were quite fanatical at that. I believe in God and secular humanism.

Melon

 

[indra]

So that's why the world is so fucked up!!

 

[Kieran McConville]

The article basically seemed to suggest that 'godlessness' worldwide is on the decline, because, well, just because professor X said it is. It just is, don't ask questions!

Goddamnit!!

Incidentally the 'Moonie Times' are a very sinister outfit from what I can tell, definitely not to be taken at face value.

 

[coemgen]

Melon, I don't know what your definitions of Christian fundamentalism and Biblical Christianity would be, if they're even different or if you have definitions for both. I consider Christian fundamentalism to almost have a right wing connotation, which I would say isn't Biblical. If this is kind of how you see it I would agree that we're on the tail end of it, but I think we're seeing a huge growth in people actually getting back to what the Bible ACTUALLY says (all of it, not just their favorite part). I guess this could be called Christian fundamentalism too though. Old-school.

And yes, science and faith can co-exist. Why did it take people so long to figure that out? I see science as the study of God's handiwork and as evidence of God.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

And yes, science and faith can co-exist. Why did it take people so long to figure that out? I see science as the study of God's handiwork and as evidence of God.

 

[nbcrusader]

The article basically seemed to suggest that 'godlessness' worldwide is on the decline, because, well, just because professor X said it is. It just is, don't ask questions!

Goddamnit!!

Incidentally the 'Moonie Times' are a very sinister outfit from what I can tell, definitely not to be taken at face value.

Are Moonies even Christians?

 

[drhark]

Incidentally the 'Moonie Times' are a very sinister outfit from what I can tell, definitely not to be taken at face value.

Suddenly I don't feel so extreme in my opinion that the New York Times and L.A. Times are liberally biased

 

[Kieran McConville]

Well NBcrusader, it's unclear to me. No, they probably aren't Christians (I believe the Reverend Moon declares himself to be a human God on earth), but their mouthpieces like the WATimes keep that under wraps fairly well, and would I suggest, convey the impression of being Christian.

Exhibit A: the article that started this thread.

As for why they would do that, I think it has something to do with their historical position against Communism etc: ie. a cultural strategy.

 

[financeguy]

I'm pretty sure the Moonies are not considered Christians.

 

[coemgen]

Nope — we're talking whacky cult here. Like many cults though, they may try to appear Christian though.

 

[Kieran McConville]

dhark, I don't know if you were being sarcastic or something, but the Moonies do actually own the Washington Times. It was founded by them. I didn't just throw it out there as a random insult.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

.

 

[financeguy]

What's your point, that McConville is himself a cult leader?

McConville is in fact a God like genius and we should all worship him.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

 

[coemgen]

We're not worthy......we suck...

 

[verte76]

And yes, science and faith can co-exist. Why did it take people so long to figure that out? I see science as the study of God's handiwork and as evidence of God.

 

[Irvine511]

Suddenly I don't feel so extreme in my opinion that the New York Times and L.A. Times are liberally biased

there is no liberal bias.

none.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

there is no liberal bias.

none.

None, that's easy for me to say.

In their 1986 book, The Media Elite, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter reported the results of their survey of 240 journalists at the nation’s top media outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. When asked about their voting patterns, journalists admitted their preference for Democrats:

Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent among the media elite voted for McGovern. This does not appear to reflect any unique aversion to Nixon. Despite the well-publicized tensions between the press and his administration, leading journalists in 1976 preferred Carter over Ford by the same margin. In fact, in the Democratic landslide of 1964, journalists picked Johnson over Goldwater by a sixteen-to-one margin, or 94 to 6 percent.

 

[Irvine511]

you conveniently forget that the people who are LEAST powerful in the newsroom are reporters. reporters have editors, and producers, and you're totally leaving out the owning of the media by -- 4, is it? -- major corporations.

it's so simplistic to say the media is liberal.

and you're also assuming that simply because one voted for a Democrat, that, 1) they are automatically "liberal" in the terms that you find most convenient in order to justify this claim, and 2) they are incapable of doing their job, 3) they are using their job as a journalist to further their own propaganda.

i know journalists. i know reporters. and i know just how hard they try to reflecte reality as they see it; and i also know the toll that this grossly specious charge is having on them, where they 2nd guess everything.

and even Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said a few years ago that the whole "liberal bias" charge was bogus, and that it was the Republicans literally "working the refs."

but, hey, they neutered the press! great job. doesn't it seem right that the press and an administration -- republican or democrat -- should have an adversarial relationship? that the press holds those in power accountable to explain their actions? that isn't being liberal, that's being a journalist, and democracy cannot function without the scrutiny of the powerful.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

If there was no media bias:
- The peace process would be reported in Iraq much more often
- CBS would not have used fake Bush memos in attempt to sway an election
- CBS would not have considered airing a Reagan film with a false statement - NEVER QUOTED - comment about people living with AIDS
- NPR would not have a liberal bias - WHICH THEY ADMIT TO
(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml)
- The New York Times would not clamp on one-sided facts to support liberal causes
- This following research would be unfounded:

http://atmizzou.missouri.edu/feb05/liberalmedia.htm

The results demonstrate a strong liberal bias. All news outlets examined, except for Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received a score to the left of, or more liberal than, the estimated position of the average U.S. voter. The scores for CBS Evening News and the New York Times were among the most liberal, while outlets such as USA Today, NPR's Morning Edition, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News Tonight were moderately liberal. The most neutral outlets were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown and ABC's Good Morning America. Fox News' Special Report, while more conservative, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks' evening news broadcasts.