NationStates Jolt Archive

According to a 2002 study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the US was the only developed nation in the survey where a majority of citizens reported that religion played a "very important" role in their lives, an attitude similar to that found in its neighbors in Latin America.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9358/1671eo3.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/w218.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/)

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4613/1672nq9.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/w353.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/)
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167


So the question is: Why?

Bad luck in our historical development, maybe.

So the question is: Why?
Hmmmm... maybe the Mormons are right after all?

i blame the jews

We aren't Europe - why should it be surprising that we're more religious than most of Europe? We aren't particularly religious compared to countries outside of Europe and parts of Asia; if anyone's an outlier, it's Japan, Russia, France and the like. But ignoring all that, it's probably just tradition and the influx of immigrants from countries where religion is more popular.

Probably because the nation was founded by a bunch of extremely religious people, and one of its central tenets is that of religious freedom. Any country with the ideal that people can come practice whatever belief they want will attract the people who believe strongly enough in their religion to leave their home for it.

The question is why, and the answer is that the US is not very religious but is merely full of a bunch of people who say something is "very important" but do nothing to live up to that publicly held statement. Then they go home, eat a hamburger and think about how stupid the question was and they think briefly about whether their answer was satisfactory before they slide off into mindless oblivion in front of the television.

The question is why, and the answer is that the US is not very religious but is merely full of a bunch of people who say something is "very important" but do nothing to live up to that publicly held statement. Then they go home, eat a hamburger and think about how stupid the question was and they think briefly about whether their answer was satisfactory before they slide off into mindless oblivion in front of the television.

You're wrong. They're cheeseburgers. Gotta have cheese. *nod*

It's because the rest of the World is made up of godless Communist oppressors. :D

i think its our democratic approach to religion.

an american doesnt conform to someone else's idea of god. we make up our own. if the church we are brought up in doesnt fit us well, we change to a slightly different one. if we dont fit in any current denomination, we make up a new one. if someone claims to have a new revelation from god, they can build up a following of believers if they can make their case well enough.

americans have made up tons of new (mostly at least somewhat christian) religions many of which exist today--LDS, christian scientist, jehovas witnesses, seventh day adventists, the shakers, plus thousands of tiny sects that came and went without making much of a ripple in the waters of religion.

That's just the way our culture and nation evolved. Why does it really matter if our nation is more religious? There is nothing inherently wrong with religious beliefs. I am Roman Catholic myself and I have no problems with people who practice other religions, so long as they feel the same about me practicing my religion.

Because in America, unlike Europe people need something to believe in. Our country was founded by people seeking religious freedoms, who ended up freely starting the most oppressively devout churches ( puritans ). Either that or we just really like free wine.

Because people in America don't like Atheist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States) :p

Perhaps because the founding fathers of what is now known as the United States of America were religious. I don't know.

Actually its Europe, Japan, and Russia that are the outliers on the map.

Actually its Europe, Japan, and Russia that are the outliers on the map.
"We're not weird, you're weird"

"We're not weird, you're weird"

As most of the world is fairly religious, the nonreligious countries are 'weird'.

Because people in America don't like Atheist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States) :p

Finally! I am not only a minority, but the most discriminated against minority!

2002? They probably should have taken a poll at a different time...I'm pretty sure religion played a far bigger role in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 than it did in previous years or following years.

However, that being said, I think it's a pretty broad cultural current that isn't just unique to the USA; the decline in religiosity in Europe is probably far more explainable by the triple impacts of the two World Wars, the Holocaust and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. The former two no doubt played a massive role in destroying religious belief and calling it in to question while the latter one simply stamped out religion at first through coercive force and later through political propaganda, substituting the state and socialism for religious belief. The US has never had a major foreign war on its soil and only one major destructive conflict in total, and the Civil War happened well before the horrifying weapons used in the World Wars were even imagined. Our country's history has been one of continual prosperity, material safety and stability unheard of anywhere in the world except other nations in the Americas.

However, decline in religious belief isn't an inherently good thing; too big of a decline leads to the loss of a lot of culture and history as well as weakens a key component of the social fabric of any community. I think the US has generally struck a good balance between the two that works quite well.

As most of the world is fairly religious, the nonreligious countries are 'weird'.

You are weird among developed countries.

You are weird among developed countries.

I didn't say weird was bad.

But say it again and we'll put a boot in your ass. :D

However, that being said, I think it's a pretty broad cultural current that isn't just unique to the USA; the decline in religiosity in Europe is probably far more explainable by the triple impacts of the two World Wars, the Holocaust and the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. The former two no doubt played a massive role in destroying religious belief and calling it in to question while the latter one simply stamped out religion at first through coercive force and later through political propaganda, substituting the state and socialism for religious belief. The US has never had a major foreign war on its soil and only one major destructive conflict in total, and the Civil War happened well before the horrifying weapons used in the World Wars were even imagined. Our country's history has been one of continual prosperity, material safety and stability unheard of anywhere in the world except other nations in the Americas.


This doesnt explain Canada being much less religious.

PS: It wouldnt explain Switzerland either if it was in the poll.

I didn't say weird was bad.

But say it again and we'll put a boot in your ass. :D

Meh, u dont stand a chance against the mighty canadian military.

I quake in fear from the mounties!

This doesnt explain Canada being much less religious.

I think the religious composition of the two countries determines it. Canada has a far smaller evangelical Christian population as a percentage of its population than the US, a fact which probably lies in various historical trends that have caused that divergence. Canada's religiousness is similar to Great Britain's, which makes sense in that context. Unfortunately, Australia isn't on there so I have no idea where they stand, but it's likely they are pretty similar to Canada in terms of the role religion plays in their lives.

Finally! I am not only a minority, but the most discriminated against minority!I know, right? They discriminate more against us more than they discriminate against gay people, even. Man, we're good. :p

PS: It wouldnt explain Switzerland either if it was in the poll.

It would if you remember that the Swiss were neutral but that didn't mean they were insulated from the effects of the war. The Swiss had a perfect vantage point for seeing all the horrors of the two wars, and their country's role in the aftermath of those conflicts (let alone the Holocaust) probably greatly affected them even if they were spared physical devastation.

I know, right? They discriminate more against us more than they discriminate against gay people, even. Man, we're good. :p

Hell yeah! We had to work hard to be this distrusted! :tongue:

Hell yeah! We had to work hard to be this distrusted! :tongue:Fuck yeah, Atheism! :D


/really bad paraphrase

Perhaps because the founding fathers of what is now known as the United States of America were religious. I don't know.

Actually they were not. They were deists!

Actually they were not. They were deists!

I meant the Pilgrims. I erroneously used the term founding fathers. Excuse me.

The better question is this: why is the world so religious?

The answer? It's quite difficult to go on living with the thought that there is nothing more than the current life, that there is no reason behind our living, that we are all going to die and waste away in oblivion, and there is nothing more to expect or hope for, etc.

That said, I'm an atheist (or a bit more of an agnostic). All the same, those are not pleasant thoughts. Being without religion or some type of "belief" of something more can be rather lonely, depressing, and frustrating. It can also cause a good deal of hopelessness and nihilism. Who wants that, eh? It makes sense that people are as religious as they are.

Of course, I think religion often goes way too far and can really be more problematic than beneficial.

Actually they were not. They were deists!

I was thinking the same thing. In the conversations about how religious this country is and how difficult it sometimes is to separate church and state, one of the first things mentioned is that the more prominent of the founding fathers warned, warned, WARNED against organized religion.

The question is why, and the answer is that the US is not very religious but is merely full of a bunch of people who say something is "very important" but do nothing to live up to that publicly held statement. Then they go home, eat a hamburger and think about how stupid the question was and they think briefly about whether their answer was satisfactory before they slide off into mindless oblivion in front of the television.

So, so, so true. While I will agree that many people THINK religion is very important to them, in a great deal of cases, we find that this isn't true at all. People definitely do occasionally say one thing when, in actuality, the opposite is really the truth.

And oh, that blasted television. This is a topic for another thread, methinks, but people seriously are so distracted and wasting away in mindless oblivion, you're right.

The relationship between politics and religion was a different one in the US. If anything, there religion had influence on the government (and one's religion put one into a certain political/ethnic group, eg Irish Catholics vs German protestants). In Europe, particularly as time progressed into the late 19th and 20th century, religion became merged into the political toolbox that ultimately led to the wars. The first one had a religious element to it, the complete destruction of all good and moral values taught by religion however led to an abandonment. I can't imagine a great many soldiers came back fervent believers in anything in particular (and I'm speaking from a German perspective here more than anything). Hence why in the interwar period you had this dislocation from everything that was old, "moral" and traditional, including religion, across all parts of cultural life, to be ultimately replaced by fascism and communism as replacement religions.

That's one explanation. Another one is that until the Vietnam war and the uprising of young people, there probably wasn't a great deal of difference in how religious Americans and Europeans were. The student protests and movements were generally quite atheist, but for what it's worth, I don't think they were as pervasive across all of society in the US as they were in Europe. Again speaking from a German perspective, things like the APO, Red Autumn, the death of Rudi Dutschke and the '69ers in general weren't confined to campuses or protests - they went on in every German household. The kids who left home then were not about to send their kids to church on Sundays.

The same would have happened in parts of the US as well, though perhaps not as completely. And if you then add the resurgence of religion as a force to organise political bodies, and the rise of the "born again" Christian (many of whom would have been young people in the late sixties and early seventies), you get some sort of picture.

So there you go, maybe both explanations are a little bit correct. Religion and authoritarian statism went together in Europe moreso than in the US for the first half of the 20th century, so when the great clearance came in the 60s and 70s, religion was attacked with more conviction there than in the States.

The relationship between politics and religion was a different one in the US. If anything, there religion had influence on the government (and one's religion put one into a certain political/ethnic group, eg Irish Catholics vs German protestants). In Europe, particularly as time progressed into the late 19th and 20th century, religion became merged into the political toolbox that ultimately led to the wars. The first one had a religious element to it, the complete destruction of all good and moral values taught by religion however led to an abandonment. I can't imagine a great many soldiers came back fervent believers in anything in particular (and I'm speaking from a German perspective here more than anything). Hence why in the interwar period you had this dislocation from everything that was old, "moral" and traditional, including religion, across all parts of cultural life, to be ultimately replaced by fascism and communism as replacement religions.

That's one explanation. Another one is that until the Vietnam war and the uprising of young people, there probably wasn't a great deal of difference in how religious Americans and Europeans were. The student protests and movements were generally quite atheist, but for what it's worth, I don't think they were as pervasive across all of society in the US as they were in Europe. Again speaking from a German perspective, things like the APO, Red Autumn, the death of Rudi Dutschke and the '69ers in general weren't confined to campuses or protests - they went on in every German household. The kids who left home then were not about to send their kids to church on Sundays.

The same would have happened in parts of the US as well, though perhaps not as completely. And if you then add the resurgence of religion as a force to organise political bodies, and the rise of the "born again" Christian (many of whom would have been young people in the late sixties and early seventies), you get some sort of picture.

So there you go, maybe both explanations are a little bit correct. Religion and authoritarian statism went together in Europe moreso than in the US for the first half of the 20th century, so when the great clearance came in the 60s and 70s, religion was attacked with more conviction there than in the States.

This doesnt explain Canada either. :D

Partly because the USSR claimed to be atheistic in nature. To show you were a good, American citizen during the cold war you had to contrast yourself with those godhating commies.

This doesnt explain Canada either. :D
Well, there were pretty significant clashes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1837_Rebellion_in_Upper_Canada) over religion, and in Quebec the Catholics were known for being particularly extreme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramontane) at one point. But then you had the "Quiet Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution)" in Quebec, and presumably the same process of general social liberalisation in the rest of Canada as well.

I can't tell you why the "Born Again" phenomenon didn't occur in Canada, part of it might be that it didn't have a wealthy but ultra-religious deep south in which a new political Christianity could develop and spread. Maybe the existence of a liberal united church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada) (or two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_of_Canada)) without an agenda of dominating much beyond the spiritual lives of its members helped too. I would really think you should know this better than I do, given how much closer you are to the source.

It's true. We're such inherently evil, thoughtless, mindless, brainless, Evangelo-fucked twats.

*eats cheeseburger and mindlessly watches NSG*

Lolza ^_^

if you have the amount of immagrants <sp?> that America has, it would be expected that there would be a variaty of religion scattered over this continent.

however, i need to include the word 'cheese-burger' in this reply so:

CHEESE-BURGERS ARE WHY!

CHEESE-BURGERS ARE WHY!

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.

9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet.10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.

(lolcatbible of course ;))

Honestly, I don't think that we're all that religious. In the city where I was born there are a lot of the large type churches, having gymnasiums and cafeterias and school rooms and the etc, along with enormous sanctuaries, which struggle to achieve one third capacity on any given sunday. The last one that I attended, over the span of probably five years, I saw attendance decline so much from attrition of the aged that my last Christmas there was notable for having a sanctuary only half full. They, again, from my experience, seem to be having a very hard time recruiting and retaining youth in numbers sufficient to replace their dying older membership, and outside of the immediate circle of people whom I knew that attended the church that I did, I did not socialize with anyone else that attended any kind of weekly religious ceremony. Now, in the rural area that I now live in there are an inordinate number of churches, but from what I can tell each new one siphons off from the membership of another one and does not seem to attract new members.

Maybe it's the fact that expats act 'more like' they were than when they left to build a sense of community and culture in a new land and all that pish, like the 'Irish' Americans getting really into the Catholic church again maybe. Then there's yer poor types like the latinos and blacks, and as everyone knows, poor people like to have something to cling to.

Actually its Europe, Japan, and Russia that are the outliers on the map.
Damn right. It's weird to be awesome.
Finally! I am not only a minority, but the most discriminated against minority!
PFFT!

Aye I'm sure that atheists are stringing up their violins as they look at the job market, for, as everyone knows, atheists get less on average than blacks and women. Aye. Obviously. Hicks not wanting you to marry their daughters is not the same as genuinely suffering for your beliefs, be reasonable about this.

Aye I'm sure that atheists are stringing up their violins as they look at the job market, for, as everyone knows, atheists get less on average than blacks and women.

Well.. there are some states that refuse to hire atheists as civil servants, while they do employ darkskinned and women...
Yes, that goes directly against the constitution. But hey.

Well.. there are some states that refuse to hire atheists as civil servants, while they do employ darkskinned and women...
Yes, that goes directly against the constitution. But hey.
Examples of this? Didn't you boys have a ruling in 1961, Torcaso v. Watkins or something?

i read an interesting book called God Won't Save America: Psychosis of a Nation by George Walden. it was quite interesting on how religion has (in part) shaped the nation as it is today

Perhaps that so many here in the States seem to be so strident about religion is a correlate to the fact that we also have such a horrifyingly disproportionate number of stupid people, all clammering about their 'raights' [every man woman and child should be free to wield an assault rifle after all while they (t)hump their bible]... 'perfect fodder for the unscrupulous, the megalomaniac, and the just downright crazed!
;-)

Actually, the former East Bloc countries are fairly religious. Religion was rebellion against the socialist government, so being religious was the only way how you could express your dissent. Look at Poland for an example thereof. Actually, religiosity is in decline since the fall of the iron curtain.

It's actually a very interesting quesiton. You'd hardly find a politician invoking god in a speech, nor would you find too many people who'd willingly go out and lobby for intelligent design or the likes in Europe. I'm quite convinced a politician lobbying for ID would immediately lose any credibility and be considered a religious nutjob, and thus become unable to gain any reasonable amounts of votes, no matter what other issies he had. Yes, we're that secular.

I could imagine that one of the reasons is that we only have two "big" christian religions. Roman Catholic and Protestant. Yes, there's only one big Protestant church (depending on country it may be another flavor, but there's generally one, and only one). And when there's only two things to pick from, because the rest doesn't really matter, and you don't really like either flavor, people become fairly apathetic about it.

It's a bit like US politics.

My question is why not?

My question is why not?Because religiousness is not a good thing. It keeps people from using their own brains, sweety.

Because religiousness is not a good thing. It keeps people from using their own brains, sweety.
I don't think you can really argue that.

You could probably argue that religiousness has been a driving force in a lot of fields for thousands of years.

And "sweety" is vastly patronising.

I don't think you can really argue that.

You could probably argue that religiousness has been a driving force in a lot of fields for thousands of years.

And "sweety" is vastly patronising.

Such as?

Such as?

Music.

I don't think you can really argue that.

You could probably argue that religiousness has been a driving force in a lot of fields for thousands of years.

And "sweety" is vastly patronising.driving to what, honey? ;)

Music.

Don't make me break out the Christian Rap.:p

Edit: What were the views of a large number of American churches to Elvis in the 50's and 60's?

Such as?
It just seems that the whole "religion has done nothing good" argument is a fairly lazy fall-back position used by a good proportion of atheists in their denigration of religion and religious people.

Admittedly, I'm cynical enough to think that people would be arseholes to each other with or without religion.

And architecture is a field which has seen a lot of influence from religion.

Music.What? Music education for the masses? What about general education? Religion, especially Christianity, has kept people from knowing for as much as a millennium. The time between 500 and 1500 CE or so is 1000 years of human development lost because of religion. We would be already colonizing the solar system right now if Christianity hadn't kept everyone in stupidity for so long, my dear.

Don't make me break out the Christian Rap.:p

:eek:

*drops a candy cane scented smokebomb and vanishes*

What? Music education for the masses? What about general education? Religion, especially Christianity, has kept people from knowing for as much as a millennium. The time between 500 and 1500 CE or so is 1000 years of human development lost because of religion. We would be already colonizing the solar system right now if Christianity hadn't kept everyone in stupidity for so long, my dear.

ANd the rest of the Galaxy owes them a debt of gratitude. ;)

ANd the rest of the Galaxy owes them a debt of gratitude.We would of course leave the Christians, Jews, and Muslims behind, so the rest of the galaxy would have nothing to worry about, love. ;)

What? Music education for the masses? What about general education? Religion, especially Christianity, has kept people from knowing for as much as a millennium. The time between 500 and 1500 CE or so is 1000 years of human development lost because of religion. We would be already colonizing the solar system right now if Christianity hadn't kept everyone in stupidity for so long, my dear.
That's vastly ungrounded.

I doubt you could dig up any evidence for such a spurious claim.

We would of course leave the Christians, Jews, and Muslims behind, so the rest of the galaxy would have nothing to worry about, love. ;)

Excellent, we could have taken Stalin with us athiests to the stars.

Excellent, we could have taken Stalin with us athiests to the stars.
Good old Uncle Joe would have kept away any vicious theistic aliens.

That's vastly ungrounded.

I doubt you could dig up any evidence for such a spurious claim.You mean lack of education in the middle ages needs more evidence, darling??

That's vastly ungrounded.

I doubt you could dig up any evidence for such a spurious claim.

How hard did the church fight the heliocentric model of the solar system?

Evolution?

Dissection of human bodies to learn about anatomy?

The church has a lot to answer for in terms of slowing the progress of humanity.

You mean lack of education in the middle ages needs more evidence, darling??
But then education was hardly wide-spread in the Roman Iron Age and areas which avoided Christianity during the medieval period were not beacons of wisdom and learning.

We would of course leave the Christians, Jews, and Muslims behind, so the rest of the galaxy would have nothing to worry about, love. ;)

I suspect there is an assumption in your view that Religion is the source of mankind's greatest flaw and not merely a symptom of it. It's an assumption I don't share. I think the best thing we could do for the galaxy is stay on Earth for another hundred thouseand years or so. Just to finish cooking. *nod*

Of course religion is more important to the average Joe Blow here than in any other developed nation. What do you expect from a country that was founded by people who were so uptight the English kicked them out?:p

But then education was hardly wide-spread in the Roman Iron Age and areas which avoided Christianity during the medieval period were not beacons of wisdom and learning.Common knowledge was a lot more in Roman times than later. Hell, with the breakdown of the Roman Empire people even forgot how to build proper houses or how to properly heat their houses in winter. The European "Dark Age" is probably worst case of cultural and social collapse in human history. And at the heart of this demise is the rise of Christianity. Now ain't that a shame, sweetheart?

We aren't Europe - why should it be surprising that we're more religious than most of Europe? We aren't particularly religious compared to countries outside of Europe and parts of Asia; if anyone's an outlier, it's Japan, Russia, France and the like. But ignoring all that, it's probably just tradition and the influx of immigrants from countries where religion is more popular.
^ ^
This.

Partly because the USSR claimed to be atheistic in nature. To show you were a good, American citizen during the cold war you had to contrast yourself with those godhating commies.
Uh-huh.... and now, fifty years later, the answer is....?

Such as?

Music.

Also, art (http://www.kblptimeline.com/sistine%20chapel%20roof,%20michelangelo,%20c%201510.jpg) and architecture (http://www.whereisjennifer.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Gaudi%20cathedral.JPG).

Because religiousness is not a good thing. It keeps people from using their own brains, sweety.
Much as condescension and acting as if one has all the answers separates atheists from theirs, sweetie?

Uh-huh.... and now, fifty years later, the answer is....?

Umm, the cold war ended 18 years ago.

Common knowledge was a lot more in Roman times than later. Hell, with the breakdown of the Roman Empire people even forgot how to build proper houses or how to properly heat their houses in winter. The European "Dark Age" is probably worst case of cultural and social collapse in human history. And at the heart of this demise is the rise of Christianity. Now ain't that a shame, sweetheart?
That's probably more coincidental than anything else.

I don't think there were bands of monks going around and stealing the secret of central heating from poor villagers. There were loads of factors in the collapse of the Roman Empire and the "Dark Ages" that can't be attributed to Christianity, like the large-scale economic downturn and climatic change, as well as the large-scale migrations of peoples from northern and eastern Europe. These would have had a large-scale affect on the populations in Romanised Europe, especially the migratory populations were replacing the Romanised élites and taking over control. The acculturation of these people, with their poorer technology, would have had a hand in the regression of techology and learning.

You also mustn't forget that a lot of the ancient texts were kept by many of the early monks, as well as keeping writing alive in much of western Europe and especially the British Isles. Admittedly, there were shameful periods were many of that sort of thing was proclaimed to be anathema to Christianity and destroyed, but I think that on the whole Christianity probably had a positive role in dragging Europe from the turmoil of the Early Medieval Period, especially in the Mediterranean and British Isles.

Also, art (http://www.kblptimeline.com/sistine%20chapel%20roof,%20michelangelo,%20c%201510.jpg) and architecture (http://www.whereisjennifer.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Gaudi%20cathedral.JPG).

:fluffle:

Umm, the cold war ended 18 years ago.
My point is that you mentioned something that started in the 1950s, yes? And by your own admission has been over nearly 20 years... so the "Godless Commies" theory seems weak.

My point is that you mentioned something that started in the 1950s, yes? And by your own admission has been over nearly 20 years... so the "Godless Commies" theory seems weak.
But the habits would have become ingrained over that period, especially with two generations or so growing up to entirely believe the idea about the "Godless commies".

I don't think you can really argue that.

You could probably argue that religiousness has been a driving force in a lot of fields for thousands of years.

And "sweety" is vastly patronising.

driving to what, honey? ;)

The time between 500 and 1500 CE or so is 1000 years of human development lost because of religion. We would be already colonizing the solar system right now if Christianity hadn't kept everyone in stupidity for so long, my dear.

We would of course leave the Christians, Jews, and Muslims behind, so the rest of the galaxy would have nothing to worry about, love. ;)

You mean lack of education in the middle ages needs more evidence, darling??

Now ain't that a shame, sweetheart?

Knock it off, you're trolling.

My point is that you mentioned something that started in the 1950s, yes? And by your own admission has been over nearly 20 years... so the "Godless Commies" theory seems weak.

Not my theory. I was just pointing out that it only ended 18 years ago so if it were a factor then many more of the people who declared religious belief to avoid being cast as godless commies would still be alive than if it had ended 50 years ago.

But the habits would have become ingrained over that period, especially with two generations or so growing up to entirely believe the idea about the "Godless commies".
....Have you been around teenagers lately? They're certainly not, by and large, indoctrinated into ANYTHING their parents believe.... and there are, as you can see on this very forum, many many people in the 20-50 age range who are US citizens and certainly are not indoctrinated into religious belief.

I put it down to their diet.

I put it down to their diet.

I didn't know cheeseburgers and pizza promoted religion?:confused:

I put it down to their diet.

You think it's the apple cobbler or the roast turkey?

It is also important to note that science as we know it was first developed during the Medieval era by Christian scholars.

As for the OP, the USA has developed a superficial approach to religion which allows them to continue to practice it without difficulty, while other nations have had to fight and suffer for their religions.

Maybe it's the chow mein or the eggplant parmigiana, or the curries, or the tacos, or the sushi, or the pad kra prow, or the Boeuf Bourguignon or the matzoh brie, or the platanos maduras, or the tonkatsu or the shish kabob or the dolmas...

Maybe it's the chow mein or the eggplant parmigiana, or the curries, or the tacos, or the sushi, or the pad kra prow, or the Boeuf Bourguignon or the matzoh brie, or the platanos maduras, or the tonkatsu or the shish kabob or the dolmas...

*eyes the hummus suspiciously*

You think it's the apple cobbler or the roast turkey?

All that tryptophan in the turkey definitely.

Maybe it's the chow mein or the eggplant parmigiana, or the curries, or the tacos, or the sushi, or the pad kra prow, or the Boeuf Bourguignon or the matzoh brie, or the platanos maduras, or the tonkatsu or the shish kabob or the dolmas...

US religiosity make me hungry.

I didn't know cheeseburgers and pizza promoted religion?:confused:Well, you must believe they are healthy to be able to eat them, while knowledge tells you otherwise (or should). That's the way religion works, right? :wink:

*eyes the hummus suspiciously*
OMG!

Here, gimme. I'll save them from the horrors of hummus.

*toasts some pita and eats*

OMG!

Here, gimme. I'll save them from the horrors of hummus.

*toasts some pita and eats*

Religious wacko. :p

US religiosity make me hungry.
*shares with Gift of God*

Religious wacko. :p
Well, you're the expert on the second part of that statement.....

tacos? *passes to LG*

Well, you must believe they are healthy to be able to eat them, while knowledge tells you otherwise (or should). That's the way religion works, right? :wink:

Now, now. Don't use my gentle joke based on a stereotype to further your anti-religion rhetoric.

*shares with Gift of God*


Well, you're the expert on the second part of that statement.....

tacos? *passes to LG*

*worships the tacos with his mouth*

*worships the tacos with his mouth*

Ewwww....

I thought the site was supposed to be PG.

It is also important to note that science as we know it was first developed during the Medieval era by Christian scholars
Religious scholars. While the Christians were languishing in the Dark Ages, the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was flourishing.

To the original question, there is a good, if rather dense, book on this called The Puritan Origins of the American Self by the Canadian author Sacvan Bercovitch.

Bad luck in our historical development, maybe.

That. Of course, someone else could call it "good luck" (not me, but meh).

Also, keeping in mind the graph "wealth vs. religion", there's also the fact that the US, while wealthy in terms of GNP, also has a big income divide (and becoming every day bigger). Maybe it could be interesting to analise how many poors in the US are strongly religious, and how many rich people in the US are strongly religious.

Well, you must believe they are healthy to be able to eat them, while knowledge tells you otherwise (or should). That's the way religion works, right? :wink:

www.religioustolerance.org

Read. Enjoy.

Religious scholars. While the Christians were languishing in the Dark Ages, the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was flourishing.

To the original question, there is a good, if rather dense, book on this called The Puritan Origins of the American Self by the Canadian author Sacvan Bercovitch.
The Byzantine Empire also had a hand in the preservation of many of the writings of the ancients.

www.religioustolerance.org

Read. Enjoy.I already know that site. Thanks anyways.

Ewwww....

I thought the site was supposed to be PG.

*nibbles the edges of the taco* You thought wrong.

Religious scholars. While the Christians were languishing in the Dark Ages, the House of Wisdom in Baghdad was flourishing.

To the original question, there is a good, if rather dense, book on this called The Puritan Origins of the American Self by the Canadian author Sacvan Bercovitch.

Did the scholars at the House of Wisdom test their theories through experimentation?

Because its one nation under GOD

Did the scholars at the House of Wisdom test their theories through experimentation?
Yes, they did.

I went to a lecture last year by Jim Al-Khalili (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/30/religion.world), in which he showed some of the documents detailing experiments in optics (some of which prefigured Newton). He also mentioned experiments in some other branches of physics. I am less sure about chemistry (he is a physicist, so perhaps he simply didn't have the interest in this area).

Note: I am not disputing your original claim; I just think medieval science was broader than Christendom.

Yes, they did.

I went to a lecture last year by Jim Al-Khalili (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/30/religion.world), in which he showed some of the documents detailing experiments in optics (some of which prefigured Newton). He also mentioned experiments in some other branches of physics. I am less sure about chemistry (he is a physicist, so perhaps he simply didn't have the interest in this area).

Note: I am not disputing your original claim; I just think medieval science was broader than Christendom.

Thanks. I'm interested in the history of science as a hobby. I can always use more info.

Because its one nation under GOD

Only after June 14, 1954. ;)

Thanks. I'm interested in the history of science as a hobby. I can always use more info.
I did my undergrad in history of science, and some of my research now is in it (though I'm drifting into literary history at the moment); it's a really interesting area. The Guardian has another brief summary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/sep/23/research.highereducation1) of the activities, but there are precious few books on medieval Islamic science.
Also, keeping in mind the graph "wealth vs. religion", there's also the fact that the US, while wealthy in terms of GNP, also has a big income divide (and becoming every day bigger). Maybe it could be interesting to analise how many poors in the US are strongly religious, and how many rich people in the US are strongly religious.
This is an extremely interesting suggestion. I'm not sure how much it has been researched; most sociological research on religion focuses on elite groups.

Yes, they did.

I went to a lecture last year by Jim Al-Khalili (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/30/religion.world), in which he showed some of the documents detailing experiments in optics (some of which prefigured Newton). He also mentioned experiments in some other branches of physics. I am less sure about chemistry (he is a physicist, so perhaps he simply didn't have the interest in this area).

Note: I am not disputing your original claim; I just think medieval science was broader than Christendom.
Well of course. We owe the integer 0 to the Arabs, and it's well known that much of medicine came from them -- as well as astronomy. So yay Islam.

Only after June 14, 1954. ;)

Yep, before that you were all a bunch of heathens going around dressed like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Perchten4.jpg




Sorry, no real point to this post, I just found the image while looking at stuff on Paganism.

Cool costumes like this? That's a religion I could believe in.

Yep, before that you were all a bunch of heathens going around dressed like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Perchten4.jpg




Sorry, no real point to this post, I just found the image while looking at stuff on Paganism.

Cool costumes like this? That's a religion I could believe in.

Ah, those were the good ol days! :)

Because its one nation under GOD
E plutibus unum was far cooler. You guys should switch back to that.
Ah, those were the good ol days! :)

There ain't no party like a virgin sacrifice party.

Thanks. I'm interested in the history of science as a hobby. I can always use more info.

I just finished a university module on it, mainly on the scientific revolution (if it existed). If you look into the Islamic Golden Age you find a hotbed of "science" and research. Copernicus quoted Islamic scientists in Revolutions, and it contains probably some of the greatest scientists you've never heard of (although direct all questions to Quintessence, since he's probably far better informed than I am).

0 however, comes from India I believe.

Because its one nation under GOD

Which god? Could be anyone's god.

There ain't no party like a virgin sacrifice party.Oh, sacrificing what makes a virgin a virgin could be my occupation every day.

Trust me, you will see a huge decrease in the number of Americans who see religion as "Very Important" over the next few decades. The same secularising forces at work in Europe are slowed down in America by our strongly religious culture.

At the same time, what Ashmoria posted on Page 1 is occuring as well. Americans are leaving the traditional Protestant denominations (Batpism, Mathodism, Lutheranism) in favour of non-denominationality, smaller religious movements, Catholicism, and irreligious spirituality.

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.

9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet.10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.

(lolcatbible of course ;))

Marry me!:fluffle:

Which god? Could be anyone's god.


The white protestant landowner God;)

Because its one nation under GOD

Since 1954. :rolleyes:

OMG!

Here, gimme. I'll save them from the horrors of hummus.

*toasts some pita and eats*

Mm, I recently had a bunch of hummus on tomato & basil Wheat Thins. Oh, so good.

The white protestant landowner God;)

Stop being redundant.

Stop being redundant.
Seems to be bloody true in a lot of cases, though.

I think that is indeed an interesting question , seeing as they started out being found by atheists.

Since 1954. :rolleyes:

And in an unofficial capacity (as such things tend to start) since the mid-1800's.

A scientific study I read recently in the Totally Genuine Science Journal concluded that in America, and especially in the South, high levels of a chemical known as 'fail' have been found in the water supply. As similar results were recorded around the Vatican, the evidence seems to suggest that high levels of 'fail' lead the brain cells to attack and destroy themselves, leaving the populace more open to the appeal of religion.

Why do atheists go out of their way to prove religious people right when religious people claim that atheists are going out of their way to destroy religion?

I sympathize with atheists who are harassed by religious people, don't mistake me. I think people have a right to NOT believe in something. What I don't appreciate is the way I'm called stupid, denounced as intolerant, and mocked as silly because I don't dismiss the possibility that a God exists. And I'm not even particularly religious!

I think that is indeed an interesting question , seeing as they started out being found by atheists.

A Deist is not an atheist. Try again.

I am of the view that the level of religiousness in America can possibly be traced back to the post-war era, as was mentioned by others. However, I don't think it was due to the horror of war, but instead for other reasons.

In Roman Catholic countries, it seems likely that the collapse was brought on by the fact that until the 1960s, they were still solely using Latin in their services. Naturally, it would have impacted on the population - they would have viewed the Roman Catholic Church as elitist and in the environment of the 1950s & 1960s, that would have been viewed poorly.

In Britain, you had turmoil in the Church of England in the 1960s, and this would have impacted on the nations of the British Empire as well. Again, that would have had an impact. In some respects, the CoE also had the elitist/establishment problem that the Roman Catholic Church had.

In Germany, the hijack of the Church (both Roman Catholic & Lutheran) by Hitler would have had a negative impact as well. People would have associated the Church with the Holocaust, and given that the Roman Catholic Church & the Lutherans had a history of anti-Semitism, it would have made things worse.

I am of the view that the level of religiousness in America can possibly be traced back to the post-war era, as was mentioned by others. However, I don't think it was due to the horror of war, but instead for other reasons.

In Roman Catholic countries, it seems likely that the collapse was brought on by the fact that until the 1960s, they were still solely using Latin in their services. Naturally, it would have impacted on the population - they would have viewed the Roman Catholic Church as elitist and in the environment of the 1950s & 1960s, that would have been viewed poorly.

In Britain, you had turmoil in the Church of England in the 1960s, and this would have impacted on the nations of the British Empire as well. Again, that would have had an impact. In some respects, the CoE also had the elitist/establishment problem that the Roman Catholic Church had.

In Germany, the hijack of the Church (both Roman Catholic & Lutheran) by Hitler would have had a negative impact as well. People would have associated the Church with the Holocaust, and given that the Roman Catholic Church & the Lutherans had a history of anti-Semitism, it would have made things worse.
I don't know enough about Nazi Germany to say whether or not the last part is true, but I agree with your general point. If the choice is between the Church and nothing, once the former's power is weakened plenty of people will go with the latter. When the choice is between church A, church B, etc., it's much more probable someone will belong to at least one religion.

In Germany, the hijack of the Church (both Roman Catholic & Lutheran) by Hitler would have had a negative impact as well. People would have associated the Church with the Holocaust, and given that the Roman Catholic Church & the Lutherans had a history of anti-Semitism, it would have made things worse.
What ??

What ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion

Hitler basically took over German christianity and subverted it to his own ends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion

Hitler basically took over German christianity and subverted it to his own ends.

Wasn't Hitler also trying to make some sort of Religion of the Third Reich? I think I read something about that somewhere.

*goes to check*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion

Hitler basically took over German christianity and subverted it to his own ends.That never worked, at least not with the ordinary population. Who is spreading such nonsense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9358/1671eo3.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/w218.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/)

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4613/1672nq9.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/w353.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/)
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167


So the question is: Why?

As L Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

That, coupled with the american obsession with money, explains the plethora of weird religions in the US.

That never worked, at least not with the ordinary population. Who is spreading such nonsense?

It didn't?

It didn't?No. Why would it? People do not change their minds and traditions in a few years just because a handful of retards in distant Berlin adhere to a strange set of ideas. The people may have followed Hitler politically (because he promised them work), but never religiously. The 1930s were nothing like our times where everybody seems to be a theology scholar.

Probably because the nation was founded by a bunch of extremely religious people, and one of its central tenets is that of religious freedom. Any country with the ideal that people can come practice whatever belief they want will attract the people who believe strongly enough in their religion to leave their home for it.

The prospect of improved economic opportunities might also have had something to do with it, but fact remains that quite a few of the original colonists of what would later become the US of A were rather fundamentalist Christians. America still hasn't gotten over it, as far as I understand the situation.

The prospect of improved economic opportunities might also have had something to do with it, but fact remains that quite a few of the original colonists of what would later become the US of A were rather fundamentalist Christians. America still hasn't gotten over it, as far as I understand the situation.
I would be very careful about using the word 'fundamentalist' in this context. Fundamentalist Christianity in the USA dates from the early 20th century, which the promulgation of the Fundamentals, as liberal and modernist forces in US Protestantism ran into conflict. A better term would be, with small or big P, 'puritan'.

Puritans were just the predecessors of the current fundamentalists, if you ask me. It's still the same tunnel vision, after all.

Puritans were just the predecessors of the current fundamentalists, if you ask me. It's still the same tunnel vision, after all.
Not quite.

At least, not if by 'Puritans' you're talking about a certain wing of the Protestants of 17th century England. They were, if memory serves, one of the sections of European Christian society relatively happy with religious tolerance.

Puritans were just the predecessors of the current fundamentalists, if you ask me. It's still the same tunnel vision, after all.
Not really. Many modernist and liberal Protestants also claimed lineage from the Puritans. Jonathan Edwards and Cotton Mather are intellectual giants of US Protestantism, not confined to the minority who are fundamentalists. Furthermore, Fundamentalist Protestantism attacked (and attacks) many forces that did not exist when the Puritans landed in New England: modernism, Mormonism, and the theory of evolution, for example.

Furthermore, you say they inhabit the same 'tunnel vision' but the two impulses have an obvious difference. The Puritans sought to escape Europe (and Catholicism) and set up a new country, a city upon a hill. Fundamentalist Protestants, particularly post-1973, (and I'm painting with a very broad brush here) generally do not advocate separatism: indeed, the most disturbing, to secularists, aspect of latter day Fundamentalist Protestantism is Dominionism.

Mark Noll's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind provides a good argument for contemporary Fundamentalist Protestants largely eschewing the theological legacy of the Puritans.

Were they also the guys that started a witchhunt in Salem? The original Puritans, I mean, not the current batch of raving evangelicals and other religist basket cases.

Were they also the guys that started a witchhunt in Salem?
Witchhunts weren't confined to Salem, but many of those involved with Salem were (at least nominally) Puritans, yes.

But any point about witchhunting should be considered in the light of the considerably more massive, probably encompassing tens of thousands of victims, persecutions in Catholic Europe. See, for example, Lyndal Roper's Witch Craze (though Oedipus and the Devil is, in my opinion, a better book).

They were, if memory serves, one of the sections of European Christian society relatively happy with religious tolerance.

Unless you were Native American. Or Quakers. Or Catholics.

In Europe, it is possible Puritans were "religiously tolerant", I dont know either way. But once they got here, they sure werent.

Unless you were Native American. Or Quakers. Or Catholics.

In Europe, it is possible Puritans were "religiously tolerant", I dont know either way. But once they got here, they sure werent.
Some pockets were. Rhode Island is always used as an example; I don't know about Massachusetts Bay.
That's not to say the Puritans would likeCatholics or Quakers, or treat them well, but political rights weren't denied.

but political rights weren't denied.

In some areas they were. Especially to athiests.

There werent mass executions or inquisitions, but tolerance was certianly not universal or to be expected.

In some areas they were. Especially to athiests.

There werent mass executions or inquisitions, but tolerance was certianly not universal or to be expected.
True. "Religious tolerance" meant something different in the 17th century. John Locke was a big proponent of tolerating all religions...except, of course, for Catholics and atheists. (It just goes without saying that those groups would undermine English society.)

John Locke was a big proponent of tolerating all religions...except, of course, for Catholics and atheists. (It just goes without saying that those groups would undermine English society.)

Its actually widely regarded that Locke, in regards to athiests, was basically giving athiests advice and saying "Stay quiet and people will leave you alone" in "code". Thats why he does that bit about how athiests shouldnt say their athiests, they should say they have an "alternate spirituality".

Catholics, well they could be tolerated if they rejected the authority of the Pope (as they no longer followed a 'foreign prince')...but then theyd hardly be Catholic anymore:p

Unless you were Native American. Or Quakers. Or Catholics.
I thought some Colonies/States had fairly liberal religious tolerance laws? Maryland comes to mind...

In Europe, it is possible Puritans were "religiously tolerant", I dont know either way. But once they got here, they sure werent.
Aye, I know more about Puritans in Europe (England specifically) than in the New World, and I believe they were fairly tolerant.

Though doubtfully in entirety.

I thought some Colonies/States had fairly liberal religious tolerance laws? Maryland comes to mind...


Some were. Some werent. Again, it wasnt really universal.

Aye, I know more about Puritans in Europe (England specifically) than in the New World, and I believe they were fairly tolerant.

Though doubtfully in entirety.

Ill take your word for it. It makes sense, as werent they usually facing persecution? When one is the minority one usually has to be kind of tolerant.

Ill take your word for it. It makes sense, as werent they usually facing persecution?
It depends where and when, but you're right in that those who were preaching 'extreme' tolerance (groups such as the Seekers, the Ranters or the Diggers; admittedly not who'd be traditionally described as 'Puritan') were often harshly persecuted.

I'd caution, however, on the use of the term 'Puritan' to (always) mean dour, finger-wagging party-poopers. Though the term in the pejorative certainly means that, there were plenty in 17th century England who'd happily be described as Puritan, yet were also happy to enjoy the finer pleasures of life.

It depends where and when, but you're right in that those who were preaching 'extreme' tolerance (groups such as the Seekers, the Ranters or the Diggers; admittedly not who'd be traditionally described as 'Puritan') were often harshly persecuted.

I'd caution, however, on the use of the term 'Puritan' to (always) mean dour, finger-wagging party-poopers. Though the term in the pejorative certainly means that, there were plenty in 17th century England who'd happily be described as Puritan, yet were also happy to enjoy the finer pleasures of life.

Indeed, I was always under the impression that a Puritan was essentially someone more conservative than the Anglican Church, or a Bible literalist of sorts.

Indeed, I was always under the impression that a Puritan was essentially someone more conservative than the Anglican Church, or a Bible literalist of sorts.
Originally, as I understand it, the term was used to describe those in England who wished the Church of England move further away from Rome and more towards the Calvinist (Reformed) ideal; more in line with places such as Scotland.

So, although it's fair to call them 'Biblical literalists', I'd be careful on the use of the word 'conservative'. If anything, those who supported the status quo in the Anglican church were conservative, while the Puritans were radical reformers.

It is also important to note that science as we know it was first developed during the Medieval era by Christian scholars.

uh, try Islamic...
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age for instance as a good place to start, and of course you'll want to take a gander at the selected bibliography)
...so I suppose you can really just praise Allah for the scientific method...
:eek:
:hail:
:p
though of course Thales is usually considered a pretty strong contender as well...
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales )

No. Why would it? People do not change their minds and traditions in a few years just because a handful of retards in distant Berlin adhere to a strange set of ideas. The people may have followed Hitler politically (because he promised them work), but never religiously. The 1930s were nothing like our times where everybody seems to be a theology scholar.

You might find some interesting reading here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

Also, the rise of German National Socialism was in large part remarkable precisely because of the radical change in the "minds and traditions" of an entire people "in a few years", and that "handful of retards" were anything but a handful (by 1939 essentially every aspect of life in Germany had been universally 'Nazified') and were certainly not restricted to "distant Berlin". The suggestion that somehow the vast number of Germans were held in unwilling shackle by a distant Leader and Party sounds regrettably apologist (or at least uninformed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9358/1671eo3.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/w218.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/)

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4613/1672nq9.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/w353.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/)
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167


So the question is: Why?

Part of it may have something to do with who settled the U.S., and when. Who: Religious minorities, cults, madmen and adventurers.

When:The Age of Reason or Age of European Empires.

Notably the U.S. has never had a taxpayer-supported National Church (such as the Church of England was during that same era). There was, therefore, no "State Church" to rebel against for American Philosophers, rabble-rousers, and the like. Religious Freedom in the U.S. tends to move more toward tolerance as a result-with so many churches able to operate as they cared to, without secular interference, there's a "god for every man" here-people therefore are less inclined to seek their answers from philosophers denouncing god than to seek a face for their god that they feel comfortable with, and thus, people tend to be more likely to be religious here.

Because religious wackos immigrated to the US. And a number of other issues.... :rolleyes:

Because religious wackos immigrated to the US. And a number of other issues.... :rolleyes:

We are not "wackos", we are simply a "peculiar people", as the Bible commands us to be, in 1 Peter 2:9.

I fulfill this scriptural command by melting down six thousand Three Musketeers Bars, recovering the nougat, and using it to make a cast of my pelvis area, and then mailing it to

3 MUSKETEERS®/MARS Inc.
Attention: Consumer Affairs Department
800 High Street
Hackettstown, NJ 07840

with a note that says I am unsatisfied and returning the unused portion for a refund.

You might find some interesting reading here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

Also, the rise of German National Socialism was in large part remarkable precisely because of the radical change in the "minds and traditions" of an entire people "in a few years", and that "handful of retards" were anything but a handful (by 1939 essentially every aspect of life in Germany had been universally 'Nazified') and were certainly not restricted to "distant Berlin". The suggestion that somehow the vast number of Germans were held in unwilling shackle by a distant Leader and Party sounds regrettably apologist (or at least uninformed).The vast number of Germans just tried to manage their own lives. There was no TV, and most folks did not read newspapers. The rise of German National Socialism happened because it sounded good word-of-mouth. But the non-urban population never understood, nor did they care, what National Socialism was really about. Outside the cities the "Nazification" was far less than you suggest. What is remarkable is that in Catholic parts of Germany the NSdAP was a lot less successful than in the Protestant parts. Catholicism was/is a monolithic belief system and its followers were very much attached to the institution and its traditions (you know, what the preacher says goes and a bible at home is but decoration) and the Nazis had a hard time trying to change its teachings, while Protestants were easy prey as everyone believed what they wanted anyways (just as today).

The Nazi propaganda machine was heavily reliant on newspaper, cinema and radio and did a very good job with these at their disposal.

The vast number of Germans just tried to manage their own lives. There was no TV, and most folks did not read newspapers. The rise of German National Socialism happened because it sounded good word-of-mouth. But the non-urban population never understood, nor did they care, what National Socialism was really about. Outside the cities the "Nazification" was far less than you suggest. What is remarkable is that in Catholic parts of Germany the NSdAP was a lot less successful than in the Protestant parts. Catholicism was/is a monolithic belief system and its followers were very much attached to the institution and its traditions (you know, what the preacher says goes and a bible at home is but decoration) and the Nazis had a hard time trying to change its teachings, while Protestants were easy prey as everyone believed what they wanted anyways (just as today).

I don't think it was a case of the Protestants being easy prey, it is just that some of Hitler's ideas (particularly the anti-semitic ones) were not foreign to them. Of all European nations, Germany was the most likely to have done what it did; you just have to consider that pre-Hitler, their cultural icons (particularly Martin Luther & Richard Wagner) were largely anti-semites.

Also, the Protestant North was more likely to be attached to the legacy of Prussia and the German Empire than the Catholic South which was in many regards still attached to Vienna up until the 1860s.

I thought some Colonies/States had fairly liberal religious tolerance laws? Maryland comes to mind...

Maryland was Catholic though, not Protestant.

Aye, I know more about Puritans in Europe (England specifically) than in the New World, and I believe they were fairly tolerant.

Though doubtfully in entirety.

Given what happened in the 1650s, I doubt that the Puritans were tolerant. My guess is that had the English Commonwealth survived, the Church of England would have probably gone extinct.

I don't know enough about Nazi Germany to say whether or not the last part is true, but I agree with your general point. If the choice is between the Church and nothing, once the former's power is weakened plenty of people will go with the latter. When the choice is between church A, church B, etc., it's much more probable someone will belong to at least one religion.

Precisely. Of course, in America where neither the Church of England, nor the Roman Catholic Church had dominance, the church's power was never weakened by public views of elitism.

The Nazi propaganda machine was heavily reliant on newspaper, cinema and radio and did a very good job with these at their disposal.You overestimate the number of people who had access to and in fact used newspaper, cinema and radio.

I don't think it was a case of the Protestants being easy prey, it is just that some of Hitler's ideas (particularly the anti-semitic ones) were not foreign to them. Of all European nations, Germany was the most likely to have done what it did; you just have to consider that pre-Hitler, their cultural icons (particularly Martin Luther & Richard Wagner) were largely anti-semites.Don't try to reduce Hitler's policies to anti-semitism. WW2 was not about Jews. What people were really interested in was WORK and economic stability (as in all times, especially in bad times), which were promised to them by the Nazis. Btw what makes you think Martin Luther was a cultural icon?

Also, the Protestant North was more likely to be attached to the legacy of Prussia and the German Empire than the Catholic South which was in many regards still attached to Vienna up until the 1860s.?? How were Bavaria, Wuerttemberg and Baden attached to Vienna?? And what about the 1860s? And which German Empire do you refer to in that time frame??

You overestimate the number of people who had access to and in fact used newspaper, cinema and radio.
Probably. My only real foray in to that period of German history was reading Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives by Stephen Bullock a couple of years ago.

Don't try to reduce Hitler's policies to anti-semitism. WW2 was not about Jews. What people were really interested in was WORK and economic stability (as in all times, especially in bad times), which were promised to them by the Nazis. Btw what makes you think Martin Luther was a cultural icon?

Re Martin Luther; as founder of the Lutheran Church, that certainly had plenty of sway. When you think of famous Germans, usually Luther is in that list.

Re the Nazis; sure, their policies were not all about anti-semitism, however, my point was that anti-semitism was not a foreign concept to Germans. When you have one historical figure propose that they have

?? How were Bavaria, Wuerttemberg and Baden attached to Vienna?? And what about the 1860s? And which German Empire do you refer to in that time frame??

In the case of Bavaria, they were very much allied with the Austrians, and that alliance was only broken after Austria's defeat in 1866. Similarly, Wurttemberg had been on Austria's side and fought alongside Austria in 1866.

If you look at spheres of influence, the Protestant North was attached to Berlin, while the Catholic South was attached to Vienna. Of course, the differences between the two not only extend to religion, but even to language (Northerners speak Low & Central German, Southerners speak High German). The Austrian sphere of influence was only broken after the Austro-Prussian War in 1866.

The German Empire I am referring to is the one of 1871-1918, which was dominated by Protestant Prussia.

When one is the minority one usually has to be kind of tolerant.

Exactly. However, when said religious minority becomes the main religious group, the mask of tolerance is quickly dropped. When God is on your side, it seems like it's only natural to strive for total control. And if the Bible taught me anything, it's that God severely dislikes dissidents.

http://ui07.gamespot.com/1062/haruhiism_2.jpg

I am Heikoku 2 and I approve of this message. :D

That would explain the fanatics with the flamethrowers.

Saudi Arabia is not rich or religious?

Saudi Arabia is not rich or religious?

So the Us compares more to Saudi Arabia than Europe or Canada? Interesting indeed.

We are not "wackos", we are simply a "peculiar people", as the Bible commands us to be, in 1 Peter 2:9.

I fulfill this scriptural command by melting down six thousand Three Musketeers Bars, recovering the nougat, and using it to make a cast of my pelvis area, and then mailing it to

3 MUSKETEERS®/MARS Inc.
Attention: Consumer Affairs Department
800 High Street
Hackettstown, NJ 07840

with a note that says I am unsatisfied and returning the unused portion for a refund.

You've got a bone to pick with Mars Inc, I gather?

You've got a bone to pick with Mars Inc, I gather?

Sounds more like he has a boner for Mars Inc., which is a rather peculiar fetish.

We were founded by religious people, who elected other religious people, who wrote important documents, and set up institutions...

And, Bob's your Uncle...


The founders in question werent always necessarily Christian, thats a myth, but one widely believed anyway...However, as a general rule they were Religious in some way...

The founders in question werent always necessarily Christian, thats a myth, but one widely believed anyway...However, as a general rule they were Religious in some way...

"Believers" may be more accurate as a term. Most founders despised organised religion, but did indeed believe in a higher power.

However, that "religious" implies "member of an organised religion" could be a personal thingy that most people would not see that way. If so, just keep using Religious ;)

"Believers" may be more accurate as a term. Most founders despised organised religion, but did indeed believe in a higher power.

However, that "religious" implies "member of an organised religion" could be a personal thingy that most people would not see that way. If so, just keep using Religious ;)

Yeah, thats what I meant, lol...

Given what happened in the 1650s, I doubt that the Puritans were tolerant. My guess is that had the English Commonwealth survived, the Church of England would have probably gone extinct.
Depends on what group of 'Puritans' would have taken over religious authority. There were some sects called 'Puritan' that desired religious tolerance; albeit Christian religious tolerance.

So the Us compares more to Saudi Arabia than Europe or Canada? Interesting indeed.

Dubai is not rich or religious?

Saudi Arabia is not rich or religious?

No, Saudi Arabia isnt rich. Its nominal GDP per capita is only $15,724. US: $47,025. Canada: $43,674

Dubai is not rich or religious?

UAE is rich but it's a very small country. Plus UAE and Qatar didnt industrialize, they just got rich with oil.

Plus UAE and Qatar didnt industrialize, they just got rich with oil.

There has been some industrialisation in those countries because of their natural resources, but it is rather limited. Their oil mainly gets processed abroad, so there are not many refineries.

Depends on what group of 'Puritans' would have taken over religious authority. There were some sects called 'Puritan' that desired religious tolerance; albeit Christian religious tolerance.

Let us not forget that the Puritans in charge of the Commonwealth of England went to the extent of banning Christmas Day. About the only tolerance they had was allowing independent churches, but that was thanks to army interference.

Let us not forget that the Puritans in charge of the Commonwealth of England went to the extent of banning Christmas Day.
Quite, but let us not also forget that the term 'Puritan' covers a large amount of groups, with a wide range of views.

Cromwell was an Independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(religion)), but his views do not cover all of those who were labelled 'Puritan'.

Maybe religion is a contagious disease, spreading sexually throughout America by Southern teenagers who are taught "abstinence only".

The better question is this: why is the world so religious?

The answer? It's quite difficult to go on living with the thought that there is nothing more than the current life, that there is no reason behind our living, that we are all going to die and waste away in oblivion, and there is nothing more to expect or hope for, etc.

That said, I'm an atheist (or a bit more of an agnostic). All the same, those are not pleasant thoughts. Being without religion or some type of "belief" of something more can be rather lonely, depressing, and frustrating. It can also cause a good deal of hopelessness and nihilism. Who wants that, eh? It makes sense that people are as religious as they are.

Of course, I think religion often goes way too far and can really be more problematic than beneficial.

:rolleyes:

Has that been your experience? It certainly hasn't been mine. The thought of no after-life kind of sucks, but I'm still busy clinging to this one.

maybe religion is a contagious disease, spreading sexually throughout america by southern teenagers who are taught "abstinence only".

lol

You mean lack of education in the middle ages needs more evidence, darling??

There wasn't a lack of education in the middle ages. A lack of public education, yes. But I think that could be better attributed to social factors that weren't so heavily influenced as religion as the fact that, well, they needed peasants to do other things. In fact in universities religion was a driving factor and influenced education greatly, and not necessarily in a bad way.

There wasn't a lack of education in the middle ages. A lack of public education, yes. But I think that could be better attributed to social factors that weren't so heavily influenced as religion as the fact that, well, they needed peasants to do other things. In fact in universities religion was a driving factor and influenced education greatly, and not necessarily in a bad way.Compared to the Middle East or the Far East in the Middle Ages the education level in Europe was at an all time low.

Compared to the Middle East or the Far East in the Middle Ages the education level in Europe was at an all time low.

It wasn't. The knowledge and education were being kept by the clergy at monasteries. It just wasn't accessible to the general population.

It wasn't. The knowledge and education were being kept by the clergy at monasteries. It just wasn't accessible to the general population.

Knowledge, yes, education in a loose sense. Education in the medieval monasteries was mostly copying out classical texts verbatim. Original thought wasn't really encouraged. The Islamic world at the time was certainly easily ahead of Christendom.

It wasn't. The knowledge and education were being kept by the clergy at monasteries. It just wasn't accessible to the general population.

Which really makes HL's statement true, although with a disclaimer...

It wasn't. The knowledge and education were being kept by the clergy at monasteries. It just wasn't accessible to the general population.Even what the clergy had was ridiculous to what knowledge was held in other parts of the world. Remember, the Renaissance period kicked in because of knowledge influx from the Middle East via Venetian trade. Greek philosophy and even Christian and Jewish writings became known again.
The ordinary people however remained dumb for quite some time after that.

Even what the clergy had was ridiculous to what knowledge was held in other parts of the world. Remember, the Renaissance period kicked in because of knowledge influx from the Middle East via Venetian trade. Greek philosophy and even Christian and Jewish writings became known again.
The ordinary people however remained dumb for quite some time after that.

*is still waiting for that period to end*

Compared to the Middle East or the Far East in the Middle Ages the education level in Europe was at an all time low.

In terms of what they taught or who got the education? If you mean the latter than yes. However, the middle aged universities where really quite good. They had a wide breadth of knowledge for everyone, regardless of what students choose to focus on. The agnostic school of thought that you can see if you read Thomas Aquinas was not "copying out classical texts verbatim". They had few ancient texts, most had to be preserved by the East. There were a lot of unique ideas, from Moore, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, many that I do not know. The elite of the middle ages had a lot of good thought that we shouldn't dismiss. Sure the common man was... well any history book will tell you that, but that doesn't mean education was completely neglected for all.

Besides, the fact that the Middle East was ahead shows that we cannot attribute this standstill to religion. Prominent middle eastern philosophers like Al-Farabi, Plotinus, Iamblicus, Al-Gazali, Moses Miamonides were focused on God, they talked of little else but it didn't intellectually harm them, it gave them a start from which to base their ideas, it hardly held them back.

America isn't all that religious. The statistics are misleading, because many people who don't really have any thoughts on the matter at all will claim to be agnostic or Christian if asked.

America isn't all that religious. The statistics are misleading, because many people who don't really have any thoughts on the matter at all will claim to be agnostic or Christian if asked.

You don't know what agnostic means, do you?

You don't know what agnostic means, do you?

Yes i do. They're people that worship Agnos.

Yes i do. They're people that worship Agnos.

I'm going to assume that you're making an attempt at humour there...

No... no. I'm being deadly serious.

/i just assumed you're not all that familiar with the philosophical ground that agnosticism covers, and didn't feel like indulging you.

No... no. I'm being deadly serious.

/i just assumed you're not all that familiar with the philosophical ground that agnosticism covers, and didn't feel like indulging you.

:rolleyes:

Why does it really matter if our nation is more religious?

Because we are meant to have seperation of church and state... people shouldn't be religious... We aren't superior than...

Ahh fuck it, it is easier just to say this.

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj82/coloneltaylor/awwjeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

No... no. I'm being deadly serious.

/i just assumed you're not all that familiar with the philosophical ground that agnosticism covers, and didn't feel like indulging you.

Hit a dictionary, young man.

Hit a dictionary, young man.

Till it bleeds and begs you to stop :tongue:

Sorry couldn't resist, I'll stop now *leaves thread*

Which really makes HL's statement true, although with a disclaimer...

Not so. HL claims education was at an all time low in the Middle Ages. Indeed it was, but with the masses. The clergy, did keep the knowledge going on the monasteries.

Forsakia: yes, the education was mainly the copy of manuscripts, but that taught the monks to read, write and understand concepts better. In another sense, it educated them.

We cannot confuse the modern ways of teaching (the Renaissance wasn't the age of the enlightenment of the common folk either) with what was needed in the Middle Ages, or what was considered education at the time.

Agreed though that education was far more ahead at the time in places like the Middle East and Asia.

Hit a dictionary, young man.

Better yet, open it up and read it
(You're gonna have ta be more specific in your instructions Nanatsu, he is a scientologist {or at least was when he started posting here})

Better yet, open it up and read it
(You're gonna have ta be more specific in your instructions Nanatsu, he is a scientologist {or at least was when he started posting here})

Right-o, my esteemed friend!:D

Yes i do. They're people that worship Agnos.

They worship my periodonist (http://www.everettperio.com/periodontist_everett_wa/meet_agnos.html)?

He'll be either thrilled or dismayed.

They worship my periodonist (http://www.everettperio.com/periodontist_everett_wa/meet_agnos.html)?

I don't know about all of them, but I do...

"Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses..."

Well, they did, and they're generally not your highest genetic stock, thus stupid, and, therefore, religious. As to the notion of us being founded by religious men...some were, some weren't, most were Deists. Certainly the two Great Awakenings show even an early preoccupation with mythology and organized self-deception, I mean religion.

Europe might slide backward into general religiosity with the incredible influx of Muslim immigrants. Christianity in Europe is definitely different from America, though.

Not that religious people are necessarily stupid. But stupid people are almost always religious.

Not so. HL claims education was at an all time low in the Middle Ages. Indeed it was, but with the masses. The clergy, did keep the knowledge going on the monasteries. Not so. The clergy did not keep knowledge that was not somehow related to the teachings of the church. Knowledge was simply lost in the Middle Ages (hence Dark Age). Math died, the arts died, hygiene died, and not only among the common people.

well it isn't really honestly "religeous" at all. it pretends to be as a way of lying to itself, and as a way of brainwashing each other, not just trying to do this to everyone else, but to each other of us internally as well.

because you see, real faith, of whatever flavor, revealer, part of the world, that's not what its about at all. real faith is about wanting your invisible friends to be happy, doing them a good turn, even as they love you and wish you well as well.

now i know there always seems to be priesthoods who try to make something else out of it. from today's evangellicals all the way back to some of the first priest and priestess kings and so on.

but there's really two different things. when big friendly and invissible chooses someone to be channeled by once every thousand years, give or take a few hundred, its all about shairing the love, not about giving us excuses to beat each other over the head, or give wealth to some imposed hierarchy.

so to call all this nonsense that hides behind the skirts of organized belief, even giving it the name of religeous, is still a spin its beneath. fanatacism is the name for that, whatever else it pretends to be, whatever revealer and 'faith' it pays lip service to.

In terms of what they taught or who got the education? If you mean the latter than yes. However, the middle aged universities where really quite good. They had a wide breadth of knowledge for everyone, regardless of what students choose to focus on. The agnostic school of thought that you can see if you read Thomas Aquinas was not "copying out classical texts verbatim". They had few ancient texts, most had to be preserved by the East. There were a lot of unique ideas, from Moore, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, many that I do not know. The elite of the middle ages had a lot of good thought that we shouldn't dismiss. Sure the common man was... well any history book will tell you that, but that doesn't mean education was completely neglected for all.

Besides, the fact that the Middle East was ahead shows that we cannot attribute this standstill to religion. Prominent middle eastern philosophers like Al-Farabi, Plotinus, Iamblicus, Al-Gazali, Moses Miamonides were focused on God, they talked of little else but it didn't intellectually harm them, it gave them a start from which to base their ideas, it hardly held them back.
The clergy in the Middle Ages were teaching Galen, Aristotle, Pliny, etc. They generally weren't interested in progression or original thought, particularly in the areas we now call the sciences. And because religion wasn't a detriment in the Islamic world doesn't make it so in Christendom. You'd be on stronger ground pointing towards Copernicus and similar figures; or the desire to find God's work as a driving force behind 'science'.

Organised Religion and the Universities did hold 'science' back, but more due to the structural set up than anything else. 'Scientific' thought did better when there were other sources of power and income


Forsakia: yes, the education was mainly the copy of manuscripts, but that taught the monks to read, write and understand concepts better. In another sense, it educated them.
It was the copying of some manuscripts that were approved of and few others. Annd learning by rote rather than understanding. Original thought wasn't exactly encouraged. It depends what you define as education.

In any case compared to the Islamic world it was far behind, which was the original point.

Not so. The clergy did not keep knowledge that was not somehow related to the teachings of the church. Knowledge was simply lost in the Middle Ages (hence Dark Age). Math died, the arts died, hygiene died, and not only among the common people.

Not true. Who do you think kept the knowledge of Hippocrates, for example, the foundation of medicine? Who do think kept Cicero and Socrates alive in the Middle Ages? The monasteries. They did not only kept knowledge pertaining to religion. If we have the works of these classical writers and thinkers today it's because monasteries like Iona and others kept them alive by transcribing their work.

Art did not died. The depiction of the body as the ancient Greeks and Romans did went on hiatus. Art basically was circumscribed to illuminated manuscripts and religious texts and bestiaries. But it did not disappear from the face of the earth. To call the Middle Ages a dark period is unjust and denotes a lack of sensible knowledge on the period. Math did not died nor did the sciences. They basically turned into alchemy (alchemy, if I may note, is the ancestor of modern medicine).

The bad hygiene part is true, though.

Not true. Who do you think kept the knowledge of Hippocrates, for example, the foundation of medicine? Who do think kept Cicero and Socrates alive in the Middle Ages? The monasteries. They did not only kept knowledge pertaining to religion. If we have the works of these classical writers and thinkers today it's because monasteries like Iona and others kept them alive by transcribing their work.

Art did not died. The depiction of the body as the ancient Greeks and Romans did went on hiatus. Art basically was circumscribed to illuminated manuscripts and religious texts and bestiaries. But it did not disappear from the face of the earth. To call the Middle Ages a dark period is unjust and denotes a lack of sensible knowledge on the period. Math did not died nor did the sciences. They basically turned into alchemy (alchemy, if I may note, is the ancestor of modern medicine).

The bad hygiene part is true, though.

They may not have died, they stagnated though. Art possibly excepted.

Perhaps because the founding fathers of what is now known as the United States of America were religious. I don't know.

They weren't, actually.

They weren't, actually.

By and large, they were deists.

That said, they were big on the idea that people should never be persecuted or harassed for their religious beliefs.

By and large, they were deists.

That said, they were big on the idea that people should never be persecuted or harassed for their religious beliefs.

Being deist isn't religious. I'm a deist and don't consider myself religious.

America has many religious fanatics right now because America is hurting. Religion is always present in its culture but when people give up hope on this world, they start focusing on the afterlife with undue zealotry. Given peace, prosperity, and the chance for their children to do better than the last generation, you'd see a lot less craziness.

Being deist isn't religious. I'm a deist and don't consider myself religious.

Yet you belive in a creator God? How is that not relgious then? Not dogmatic yeah I can see that.

Yet you belive in a creator God? How is that not relgious then? Not dogmatic yeah I can see that.

I dunno. I just think that something must have kicked off the big bang, and it's just easier to call it a God. It's not exactly religion.

I dunno. I just think that something must have kicked off the big bang, and it's just easier to call it a God. It's not exactly religion.

Can that really be called Deism then I wonder, or is it closer to agnostisism?

I see Deism primarly as denying religous dogma, whilst beliving in a creative deity. Perhaps that is an incorrect definition of the word, anybody?

Not true. Who do you think kept the knowledge of Hippocrates, for example, the foundation of medicine? Who do think kept Cicero and Socrates alive in the Middle Ages? The monasteries. They did not only kept knowledge pertaining to religion. If we have the works of these classical writers and thinkers today it's because monasteries like Iona and others kept them alive by transcribing their work.

Art did not died. The depiction of the body as the ancient Greeks and Romans did went on hiatus. Art basically was circumscribed to illuminated manuscripts and religious texts and bestiaries. But it did not disappear from the face of the earth. To call the Middle Ages a dark period is unjust and denotes a lack of sensible knowledge on the period. Math did not died nor did the sciences. They basically turned into alchemy (alchemy, if I may note, is the ancestor of modern medicine).

The bad hygiene part is true, though.

The knowledge of Hippocrates and such was kept by the Byzantine folks and then by Muslims while Europe under the Francs and subsequent dynasties and controlled by the church (West Rome) fell into stupidity.

Because religiousness is not a good thing. It keeps people from using their own brains, sweety.

That puts you in the 5% of world population without religious faith. That's a rather slim minority, don't you think?

Can that really be called Deism then I wonder, or is it closer to agnostisism?

I see Deism primarly as denying religous dogma, whilst beliving in a creative deity. Perhaps that is an incorrect definition of the word, anybody?

Deism is the belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that religious truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world. Deists generally reject the notion of supernatural revelation as a basis of truth or religious dogma. These views contrast with the dependence on divine revelation found in many Christian[1], Islamic and Judaic teachings.

Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe which he does not alter either by intervening in the affairs of human life or suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

Deism became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in the United Kingdom, France and the United States, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in either a triune God, the divinity of Jesus, miracles, or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one god. Initially it did not form any congregations, but in time deism strongly influenced other religious groups, such as Unitarianism, and Unitarian Universalism, which developed from it. It continues to this day in the form of classical deism and modern deism.
I'd call that religious

The knowledge of Hippocrates and such was kept by the Byzantine folks and then by Muslims while Europe under the Francs and subsequent dynasties fell into stupidity.

Do take a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) before you post erroneously about the Middle Ages.

Selected quotes to back my claims:
The Catholic Church was the major unifying cultural influence, preserving its selection from Latin learning, maintaining the art of writing, and a centralized administration through its network of bishops.

Monks and monasteries had a deep effect upon the religious and political life of the Early Middle Ages, in various cases acting as land trusts for powerful families, centres of propaganda and royal support in newly conquered regions, bases for mission, and proselytization. They were the main outposts of education and literacy.

Few large stone buildings were attempted between the Constantinian basilicas of the 4th century, and the 8th century. At this time, the establishment of churches and monasteries, and a comparative political stability, brought about the development of a form of stone architecture loosely based upon Roman forms and hence later named Romanesque. Where available, Roman brick and stone buildings were heavily robbed for their materials. From the fairly tentative beginnings known as the First Romanesque, the style flourished and spread across Europe in a remarkably homogeneous form. The features are massive stone walls, openings topped by semi-circular arches, small windows, and, particularly in France, arched stone vaults and arrows

In the decorative arts, Celtic and Germanic barbarian forms were absorbed into Christian art, although the central impulse remained Roman and Byzantine. High quality jewellery and religious imagery were produced throughout Western Europe; Charlemagne and other monarchs provided patronage for religious artworks such as reliquaries and books. Some of the principal artworks of the age were the fabulous Illuminated manuscripts produced by monks on vellum, using gold, silver, and precious pigments to illustrate biblical narratives. Early examples include the Book of Kells and many Carolingian and Ottonian Frankish manuscripts.

During the early Middle Ages and the Islamic Golden Age, Islamic philosophy, science, and technology were more advanced than in Western Europe. Islamic scholars both preserved and built upon earlier Ancient Greek and Roman traditions and also added their own inventions and innovations. Islamic al-Andalus passed much of this on to Europe (see Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe). The replacement of Roman numerals with the decimal positional number system and the invention of algebra allowed more advanced mathematics. Another consequence was that the Latin-speaking world regained access to lost classical literature and philosophy. Latin translations of the 12th century fed a passion for Aristotelian philosophy and Islamic science that is frequently referred to as the Renaissance of the 12th century. Meanwhile, trade grew throughout Europe as the dangers of travel were reduced, and steady economic growth resumed. Cathedral schools and monasteries ceased to be the sole sources of education in the 11th century when universities were established in major European cities. Literacy became available to a wider class of people, and there were major advances in art, sculpture, music, and architecture. Large cathedrals were built across Europe, first in the Romanesque, and later in the more decorative Gothic style.

During the 12th and 13th century in Europe, there was a radical change in the rate of new inventions, innovations in the ways of managing traditional means of production, and economic growth. The period saw major technological advances, including the invention of cannon, spectacles, and artesian wells, and the cross-cultural introduction of gunpowder, silk, the compass, and the astrolabe from the east. There were also great improvements to ships and the clock. The latter advances made possible the dawn of the Age of Exploration. At the same time, huge numbers of Greek and Arabic works on medicine and the sciences were translated and distributed throughout Europe. Aristotle especially became very important, his rational and logical approach to knowledge influencing the scholars at the newly forming universities which were absorbing and disseminating the new knowledge during the 12th Century Renaissance.

Let me note that I do not contradict the preserving of ancient knowledge by the Arabs. But through them, later on, monasteries helped preserve the knowledge of the ancients and translated it for further study.

That puts you in the 5% of world population without religious faith. That's a rather slim minority, don't you think?

While not agreeing with the posters comment to which the above is a reply, I would question your figures. 5% really, whats your source for that then?

That puts you in the 5% of world population without religious faith. That's a rather slim minority, don't you think?Well, mental sanity has always had a relatively small percentage in the overall population. Inventing invisible sky friends is of course always a comfortable way of avoiding a search for (f)actual answers.

Can that really be called Deism then I wonder, or is it closer to agnostisism?

I see Deism primarly as denying religous dogma, whilst beliving in a creative deity. Perhaps that is an incorrect definition of the word, anybody?

Agnosticism means you don't really know/care, deism means that you believe in a God but not in a fully religious way.

That puts you in the 5% of world population without religious faith. That's a rather slim minority, don't you think?

Where did you get that figure from?

Agnosticism means you don't really know/care, deism means that you believe in a God but not in a fully religious way.

Deism is a religious belief. I think that what you actually object to is organized religion - that is, some form of centralized organization that promulgates dogma.

You're religious, though.

Agnosticism means you don't really know/care, deism means that you believe in a God but not in a fully religious way.

Yet if religion is defined as a set of belifes about God, then how can one belive in God in a non religious way?

Probably because the only people who took the survey were old people. Who the hell has time to take a survey, other than someone who's retired?



Inver Brass

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him would have everlasting life.


Belief in Jesus is all that is needed to be saved

Yet if religion is defined as a set of belifes about God, then how can one belive in God in a non religious way?

Perhaps by not labeling that in which one believes as a god?

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him would have everlasting life.


Belief in Jesus is all that is needed to be saved

So what's the point of the rest of the book? The commandments and the like?

The early christains could have saved a lot of paper if all they needed to do was distribute one line.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him would have everlasting life.


Belief in Jesus is all that is needed to be saved

Yes, trust the words of a scientifically inaccurate book that's about 2000 years old.

You're religious, though.

Oh. I don't consider myself to be.

Perhaps by not labeling that in which one believes as a god?

Yeah I would agree with that, would it still be called deism though? I think not.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him would have everlasting life.


Belief in Jesus is all that is needed to be saved Prove it.

Yeah I would agree with that, would it still be called deism though? I think not.

Maybe not, since it has nothing to do with a deity.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him would have everlasting life.


Belief in Jesus is all that is needed to be saved

We can all do that though huh!

Guru Granth Shaib Page 2.

Kiv sachi-aaraa ho-ee-ai? Kiv koorhai tutai paal?
Hukam rajaa-ee chalnaa naanak likhi-aa naal.

(So how can you become truthful? And how can the veil of illusion be torn away?
O Nanak, it is written that you shall obey the Hukam of His Command, and walk in the Way of His Will.)

What exactly does that prove then?

Oh. I don't consider myself to be.

Heh yet you belive in deity?

Heh yet you belive in deity?

Well, you don't even have to call it God. Just something that kicked off the universe.

Well, you don't even have to call it God. Just something that kicked off the universe.

Creative force is a good name for that. Demo... then we would have to go on a debate about Evolution and Creationism and yadda yadda yadda.

i think its our democratic approach to religion.

an american doesnt conform to someone else's idea of god. we make up our own. if the church we are brought up in doesnt fit us well, we change to a slightly different one. if we dont fit in any current denomination, we make up a new one. if someone claims to have a new revelation from god, they can build up a following of believers if they can make their case well enough.

americans have made up tons of new (mostly at least somewhat christian) religions many of which exist today--LDS, christian scientist, jehovas witnesses, seventh day adventists, the shakers, plus thousands of tiny sects that came and went without making much of a ripple in the waters of religion.
Cant forget the scientologists

Cant forget the scientologists

Although we wish we could.

Although we wish we could.

That made me laugh.

That made me laugh.

Good, because it's the truth.:tongue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9358/1671eo3.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/w218.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1671eo3.gif/1/)

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/4613/1672nq9.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/w353.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img126/1672nq9.gif/1/)
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=167


So the question is: Why?

Europe, I hypothesize, had the religion beaten out of it by a series of civilization altering events, beginning with the French Revolution and ending with Second World War. European society going into the Revolution and European society coming out of the Second World War were radically different from each other. The United States has had no such comparable events. With the exception of the influence of technology, American society hasn't changed radically in it's last three centuries. It still insists on religion, hard work, freedom, etc.

Well, you don't even have to call it God. Just something that kicked off the universe.

All well and good, but deists belive that which kicked of the universe was a creative deity. If this is not what you belive then I guess you would not be deist.

Although we wish we could.

Damn, you beat me to it...

I was going to say "No matter how hard we try..."

Europe, I hypothesize, had the religion beaten out of it by a series of civilization altering events, beginning with the French Revolution and ending with Second World War. The United States has had no such comparable events.

American Revolution and the Second World war, maybe?