Atheism ends today

[ProfessorDavey]

Right, and in fact when My friend became a catholic there was one less.

Poor thinking, because while there will be some people 'converting' (or more likely reverting) to catholicism from being non religious there will be others going in the other direction, in other words converting from being catholic to non religious. Only by know the proportions moving in the one direction and the other can you determine whether the 'net' movement is from non religious to catholic or from catholic to non religion.

If only there was an organisation that has looked into this. Well guess what ... there is ... the catholic church in the UK. From a recent report:

'[Looking at] the ratio of disaffiliates (i.e., those brought up as X who no longer identify as X) to converts (i.e., those who now identify as X, who were brought up as something other than X). Thus, for every one Catholic convert in England and Wales, ten cradle Catholics no longer identify as Catholics.

So for every person like your chap, there are 10 people who used to affiliate as catholic now no longer affiliating as such, mostly being non religious.

[ProfessorDavey]

Were you brought up as a catholic, Davey? Have you put it behind you?

No I wasn't. But I know loads of catholics as my wife is. I'm struggling to think of anyone I know who currently affiliates as catholic who wasn't brought up as catholic. I know there were a block of disaffected anglicans who jumped ship over women priests and bishops, but I don't know any of those people. And my anecdotal experience seems to chime with reality, on the basis that if you meet someone who currently affiliates as catholic there is a 93% likelihood they were brought up as catholic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.
I cannot comment as I don't know him - what I can say is that had he been brought up in a non religious manner and ultimately became a catholic then he is a very, very rare beast indeed - one in more than one

Yes a rare beast but a beast none the less. Now let's discuss that since it is more closely aligned to the data we have...which is a true story about the loss of atheism. To you, a story which you have moved heaven and earth to ameliorate. That typical response of the hard arsed atheist is what interests me considering it is so close as to be indistinguishable from god avoidance.

Having banged on about it so I would have expected a more transparent thesis about a persons catholicism becoming atheism becoming catholicism but you haven't failed to disappoint in the explanatory stakes. In other words if you don't know the process why are you claiming it's relevent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I wasn't. But I know loads of catholics as my wife is. I'm struggling to think of anyone I know who currently affiliates as catholic who wasn't brought up as catholic. I know there were a block of disaffected anglicans who jumped ship over women priests and bishops, but I don't know any of those people. And my anecdotal experience seems to chime with reality, on the basis that if you meet someone who currently affiliates as catholic there is a 93% likelihood they were brought up as catholic.

Reality is a bit too strong equation even for a 93% chance.

[ProfessorDavey]

Refusing to even consider thinking about it smacks of Goddodging to me.

Not at all - and there you go again with your weird obsession with what you describe as (but cannot actually explain in a coherent manner) god-dodging.

I've already indicated the most likely explanation - person brought up as catholic, drifts away and has a crisis of faith to such an extent that he describes himself as atheist. And for reasons know to himself, either faith-driven or simply due to culture and heritage reverts back to being catholic. There could be all sorts of reasons for this (most likely) reversion rather than conversion. Perhaps he got married to a catholic who was keen for him to become more involved, maybe he had kids and wanted them raised as he had been, perhaps he was simply drifting back toward upbringing certainties (many of us do this), maybe (whisper it quietly) he wanted his kids to get into a well regarded catholic school. Maybe something happened in his life with made him feel that his (most likely) upbringing religion was more important than he'd previously thought.

Why is that such a difficult thing for you to understand.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes a rare beast but a beast none the less.

But you don't know whether your friend is indeed this rather rare beast because you don't know about his upbringing. Rather than assume he is a rare beast indeed (either one in ~18 is he wasn't brought up catholic, or one in >100 is he was brought up in a non religious household) surely rather better to assume he was brought up catholic if you are to make an assumption at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Having banged on about it so I would have expected a more transparent thesis about a persons catholicism becoming atheism becoming catholicism but you haven't failed to disappoint in the explanatory stakes. In other words if you don't know the process why are you claiming it's relevent.

Just given it - I think I described a whole range of reasons why this process might have occurred, including reconnecting with the importance of the faith this person would have been brought up in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not at all - and there you go again with your weird obsession with what you describe as (but cannot actually explain in a coherent manner) god-dodging.

I've already indicated the most likely explanation - person brought up as catholic, drifts away and has a crisis of faith to such an extent that he describes himself as atheist. And for reasons know to himself, either faith-driven or simply due to culture and heritage reverts back to being catholic. There could be all sorts of reasons for this (most likely) reversion rather than conversion. Perhaps he got married to a catholic who was keen for him to become more involved, maybe he had kids and wanted them raised as he had been, perhaps he was simply drifting back toward upbringing certainties (many of us do this), maybe (whisper it quietly) he wanted his kids to get into a well regarded catholic school. Maybe something happened in his life with made him feel that his (most likely) upbringing religion was more important than he'd previously thought.

You haven't mentioned the overt rejection of atheism prior to the adoption of catholicism.
Thanks anyway progress but it still strongly looks like you are trying to ameliorate the blow of Atheism rebuffed...on yourself.

[ProfessorDavey]

You haven't mentioned the overt rejection of atheism prior to the adoption of catholicism.

Sure, if someone does not believe that god exists one moment and then the next believes in god you will have an overt rejection of atheism to use your phraseology. However that isn't a phrase I'd use myself as you tend to reject things that are positively asserted and atheism isn't positively asserting anything - it is a lack of belief not a belief.

But nonetheless if someone that does not believe that god exists one moment and then the next believes god does exist represents an overt rejection of atheism, then someone that believes that god exists one moment and then the next does not believe that god exists represents a similar overt rejection of theism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sure, if someone does not believe that god exists one moment and then the next believes in god you will have an overt rejection of atheism to use your phraseology.

It is a rejection of atheism as opposed to apatheism. I don't know if he was hard or soft atheist although one of his objections to religion was how on earth people could be devoted to an idea (so much for previous catholicism)

However that isn't a phrase I'd use myself as you tend to reject things that are positively asserted and atheism isn't positively asserting anything - it is a lack of belief not a belief.

Atheism though from what I have learned on this board is the acting as if God does not exist, stopping acting as if God doesn't exist constitutes a rebuttal of the act and I am awfully sorry to break this to you but some people do positively assert that God does not exist and you cannot refuse those people atheism.

But nonetheless if someone that does not believe that god exists one moment and then the next believes god does exist represents an overt rejection of atheism, then someone that believes that god exists one moment and then the next does not believe that god exists represents a similar overt rejection of theism.

I think it is rather the case that people realise they have been living off the faith of others and they don't themselves actually have a faith which is authentic to them as it were.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it is rather the case that people realise they have been living off the faith of others and they don't themselves actually have a faith which is authentic to them as it were.

Disingenuous clap-trap Vlad.

If someone going from not believing in god to believing in god is a rejection of atheism (as you demand) then someone going from believing in god to not believing in god is a rejection of theism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know if he was hard or soft atheist although one of his objections to religion was how on earth people could be devoted to an idea (so much for previous catholicism)

Sounds entirely consistent - don't forget that 'converts' can be the most fervent and if he'd never been embedded in the world of catholicism then how would he know how devoted catholics were to their beliefs. Some of the people I know who are most vitriolic about catholicism are ... err ... ex catholics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Disingenuous clap-trap Vlad.

If someone going from not believing in god to believing in god is a rejection of atheism (as you demand) then someone going from believing in god to not believing in god is a rejection of theism.

That's obvious and technical. If you are saying that people do not realise that they have been living of the faith of others then I have to disagree with you. Also viewing God merely as an idea in complete seeming ignorance of a personal God is redolent of somebody not exposed to religious communal life. I have conversed with many seeming and professed ex christians who's actual knowledge of the faith and the faith community has been commensurately appalling with those with no religious upbringing. Nowhere in personal God Christianity is the idea that God is just an idea.

This leads me to believe that this inculcation of which you speak is not nearly as effective as you make out.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's obvious and technical.

Yet you seem to be highly reluctant to admit it.

Somehow you see someone going from not believing in god to believing in god as a huge rejection and a blow to atheism, yet seem reluctant to accept the therefore someone going from believing in god to not believing in god must therefore be a huge rejection and a blow to theism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have conversed with many seeming and professed ex christians who's actual knowledge of the faith and the faith community has been commensurately appalling with those with no religious upbringing.

Oh dear so now you seem to be implying that people rejecting their prior christian faith and becoming non religious only do so because they are ignorant. That seems a touch insulting.

[ProfessorDavey]

This leads me to believe that this inculcation of which you speak is not nearly as effective as you make out.

Do you mean bringing up kids as religious as a means to ensure they are religious as adults. If so, yup you are right it is pretty ineffectual, with (in the UK) nigh on 50% of kids brought up as religious rejecting that religion when they are adults.

The issue isn't whether it is effective, the issue is that it is absolutely necessary as kids brought up in a non religious household almost never become religious as adults.

So a religious upbringing is necessary for someone to be religious as an adult, but not very effective (i.e. many will become non religious as adults).

A non religious upbringing is hugely effective at producing non religious adults (virtually all will be) but not even necessary as there are plenty of non religious adults that come from religious upbringing.

And of course most religious upbringings specifically use all sorts of approaches to inculcate religion. A non religious upbringing typically does nothing to inculcate non religiosity, it merely doesn't involve religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear so now you seem to be implying that people rejecting their prior christian faith and becoming non religious only do so because they are ignorant. That seems a touch insulting.

Not at all. My observation is that many who claim to have lost a deep christianity didn't have a deep one to begin with and certainly not one distinguishable with those ignorant of aspects of faith due to lack of effective and affective exposure to it.

You on the other hand have been unable to shake of the suspicion that you are slyly making a no true scotsman argument implying that Atheists who convert only do so to a 'cultural' affiliation or that they aren't proper atheists because as you said yourself if catholics inculcate children they have them for life. If i'm wrong rather than just naturally confused by your replies then that leaves us with the childhood catholic who genuinely turns to full and total atheist conviction and then turns to full and total catholic conviction. And that in turns leads us to ponder whether any atheist, no matter what their childhood background is vulnerable to conversion...and that I think, judging by the effort at amelioration carried out by your good self. Conversely if ex catholics do not make deep atheists does anything make a deep atheists and are there indeed such people.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not at all. My observation is that many who claim to have lost a deep christianity didn't have a deep one to begin with and certainly not one distinguishable with those ignorant of aspects of faith due to lack of effective and affective exposure to it.

You on the other hand have been unable to shake of the suspicion that you are slyly making a no true scotsman argument ...

Oh dear - so your argument is that they didn't reject christianity because they weren't really christians. No true Scotsman argument on steroids - interesting that you accused me of this, when I didn't yet you are doing it in spades.

[ProfessorDavey]

If i'm wrong rather than just naturally confused by your replies then that leaves us with the childhood catholic who genuinely turns to full and total atheist conviction and then turns to full and total catholic conviction.

I suspect that does happen, albeit I imagine it is fairly rare.

It is, however, extremely common for people to rebel against their upbringing in late childhood/early adulthood and then return to the fold so to speak. But, of course the thing 'rebelled' against needs to be significant in terms of upbringing. So a child brought up in a household where religion is a hugely significant part of life is very likely to rebel against that. Non-religion hasn't the same significance so while they may rebel against something else they'd be no more likely to rebel against non-religion as a child brought up catholic would rebel again non-judaism or non-atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you mean bringing up kids as religious as a means to ensure they are religious as adults. If so, yup you are right it is pretty ineffectual, with (in the UK) nigh on 50% of kids brought up as religious rejecting that religion when they are adults.

A percentage of which will realise that were living in the faith of others rather than actually having a deep faith of their own in other words, monkey do etc.

Nominal religion isn't really a win or of interest to evangelicals like meself.

On the other hand you seem to be saying that those brought up as apatheists hardly ever leave or question their parents world view position. Is that particularly healthy I wonder or is it just evidence of neotenisation and infantilisation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - so your argument is that they didn't reject christianity because they weren't really christians.  No true Scotsman argument on steroids - interesting that you accused me of this, when I didn't yet you are doing it in spades.

Not sure, your spiritual father Richard Dawkins thinks there are no such people as Christian children or moslem children or Jewish children etc, and I can imagine at hearing that you were among those who nodded sagely in agreement. I didn't say all were like that because apostasy is recorded in the letter to the Hebrews but many make a lasting commitment at an early age and many just slip into apatheism which only optimistic atheists might term actual atheism
However there are other Christianities that would argue that endurance is the mark of true christianity and I suspect you really want that to be so of atheism too eh, Davey.

[ProfessorDavey]

A percentage of which will realise that were living in the faith of others rather than actually having a deep faith of their own in other words, monkey do etc.

Nominal religion isn't really a win or of interest to evangelicals like meself.

Oh dear - more 'no true Scotsman' nonsense.

I'm sure your many co-religionists of various flavours will be delighted to know that whether or not they are a true christian is determined by Vlad, and Vlad alone.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the other hand you seem to be saying that those brought up as apatheists ...

I doubt very much that there are many children brought up as apatheists Vlad. There are plenty brought up in non-religious households, but that is an entirely different matter from being brought up as apatheists.

[jeremyp]

This is all well and good, but let's review where we are:

• The Christian god loves us and wants us all to get the gift of eternal life
• To get the gift of eternal life, you can't be an atheist because that would mean not worshipping Jesus as a god
• God would therefore prefer everybody not to be atheists
• If Christians ask God asked to end atheism, he would be only too delighted to grant their request because then all ex-atheists (whom God loves) would be saved

God did not end atheism when requested so we can only assume he does not exist, or if he does exist, he is not the Christian god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - more 'no true Scotsman' nonsense.

I'm sure your many co-religionists of various flavours will be delighted to know that whether or not they are a true christian is determined by Vlad, and Vlad alone.

You flatter me, Prof.
Concerning the No true Scotsman''thing''. Seems of limited use any way after all, nobody is going to against a statement like ''No true Ford Focus is going to win the ladies winter olympic figure state championship on style''.