Why are Americans so religious?

[jdw100]

Gordon Hill said:

I don't get the connection between religion and being thick and ignorant. Many atheists are as thick as mince as well and just as loud and zealous. I know quite a few people who have a belief in an afterlife but are also highly intelligent. What I have noticed though is that a lot of them tend to avoid organised religion and don't belong to any particular denomination preferring a more spiritual based existence.

I keep an open mind because I simply don't know one way or the other, it's pretty arrogant to be honest to say that you know it's all bullsh#t, you haven't died yet and you've about as much idea as I have no matter how "forward thinking and enlightened" you may profess to be.

Of course many atheists are thick. Many will be racist, some believe in ancient aliens nonsense, some will be rapists, use healing crystals, or be charity workers, work in insurance, be good parents or alcoholics or….

That’s because being an atheist is being able to give an answer to a single question. It’s not a belief system or set of rules. Just the answer to one question.

An atheist doesn’t even have had to study religion(s) in any form whatsoever.

Many atheists as just as ignorant of religion, belief systems, cosmology, evolution, consciousness and various fundamental philosophical questions as most religious believers. It doesn’t matter, it’s just how you answer one question.

Then you get in humanists (I am kind of in that camp) and anti-theists, which is how I describe myself.

Humanism is probably close to a belief system, although it’s not. As an anti-theist I like to think I can give reasoned arguments based on decades of study.

A lot of atheists I’ve met chuck out ‘big bang’ or ‘evolution’ without even a basic understanding of the terms. In the same way the religious might say ‘it was Allah what done it’. It doesn’t matter though it’s just an answer for most to ‘are you convinced to any level of certainty that a god or gods exist?’

Being an atheist doesn’t automatically make you smarter or better at science or a nicer person.

I have a Christian brother in law who does a lot of work in helping poor people in conjunction with his opposite numbers at the local mosque. I don’t do stuff like that because I’m pretty selfish and don’t really care (why I’m not really a humanist although I’d like be)

Being able to present contextual arguments as to why his bible history is st or talk through why current hypothesis related to abiogenesis make his creation story laughable doesn’t make me the superior person here.

I also find some atheist’s ‘certainty’ as very similar to that of theists.

A simplified example. How did everything come into being?

‘I’m certain god created the universe!’

‘Ha ha of course not in came into being due to big bang,’

And that’s as far as many atheist can go…they’re certain that’s the real answer. It’s not.

The answer is in fact ‘our current best model for the ‘start’ of the universe is best explained thorough the Big Bang via prediction and observation, however there are different competing hypotheses and I wouldn’t want to hang my hat on one of those because I’m not clever enough to really understand much of it. Plus new ideas that don’t require a singularity are gaining traction and overall cosmology is in real flux right now.

So, honestly as an atheist I can’t answer the question with any certainty beyond ‘this is the best current model’. If it was your god though let’s see some evidence to back up the claim’.

This is why some theists get upset with me! The most honest answer to many of the big questions is ‘we don’t know and may never know during our lifetimes or ever’.

Of course I’m not going to kill someone or shun them because they have a different view on gravity or speciation or big bang or whatever.

God bless you all.

Edited by jdw100 on Tuesday 25th June 01:38

Edited by jdw100 on Tuesday 25th June 04:26

[MikeM6]

CHLEMCBC said:

I have a few dozen US acquaintances who consistently post drivel on socials and I watch a lot of political commentary. What's your first hand experience of travels across America?

Last year I travelled through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, then back up to Tennessee, across into Arkansas and then into Texas, before returning to Baton Rouge in Louisiana for a short stay. My brother in law lives there and so we stayed with him. As we were doing a road trip, we saw an awful lot more of the place then you would as a regular tourist.

The thing that struck me primarily about the people was how incredibly polite everyone was all the time, really quite something when you are used to British people. It was a little unnerving at first, but I actually grew to like it.

I did notice the deprivation in places, especially in a city like Baton Rouge. It was saddening and I felt like many people were facing real hardship, although I didn't see as much homelessness as I thought I might. Even still the wealth devide was eye opening.

I ended up talking to some very nice people in a bar in Texas, who were friendly and seemed intelligent, but also quite religious. I kept my atheist views to myself, in the same way that I did when I was in Cairo, Istanbul or in Tunisia (or in parts of the UK for that matter).

I had a great time at NASA in Houston, which showed the accomplishments of the American attitude to problem solving and how using arrogance to brute force your way through can lead to astonishing results.

I also enjoyed a trip to the shooting range in Baton Rouge, talking to people about gun ownership. They were intrigued to find out that we don't really have that many guns in private ownership, as to them it seemed strange that it wouldn't be allowed. Different lifestyles give you different perspectives.

If the Greens ever achieve their pledge of taking away your car (which they promise to do, even EVs), you would be horrified at the affront to your freedom, even though many die in car accidents etc. Change car for gun to get a sense of the principle involved.

Going there changed my perspective on the place. I wouldn't allow social media or internet commentary to become a substitute for real experience.

Edited by MikeM6 on Tuesday 25th June 07:15

[Zigster]

jdw100 said:

Gordon Hill said:

I don't get the connection between religion and being thick and ignorant. Many atheists are as thick as mince as well and just as loud and zealous. I know quite a few people who have a belief in an afterlife but are also highly intelligent. What I have noticed though is that a lot of them tend to avoid organised religion and don't belong to any particular denomination preferring a more spiritual based existence.

I keep an open mind because I simply don't know one way or the other, it's pretty arrogant to be honest to say that you know it's all bullsh#t, you haven't died yet and you've about as much idea as I have no matter how "forward thinking and enlightened" you may profess to be.

Of course many atheists are thick. Many will be racist, some believe in ancient aliens nonsense, some will be rapists, use healing crystals, or be charity workers, work in insurance, be good parents or alcoholics or….

That’s because being an atheist is being able to give an answer to a single question. It’s not a belief system or set of rules. Just the answer to one question.

An atheist doesn’t even have had to study religion(s) in any form whatsoever.

Many atheists as just as ignorant of religion, belief systems, cosmology, evolution, consciousness and various fundamental philosophical questions as most religious believers. It doesn’t matter, it’s just how you answer one question.

Then you get in humanists (I am kind of in that camp) and anti-theists, which is how I describe myself.

Humanism is probably close to a belief system, although it’s not. As an anti-theist I like to think I can give reasoned arguments based on decades of study.

A lot of atheists I’ve met chuck out ‘big bang’ or ‘evolution’ without even a basic understanding of the terms. In the same way the religious might say ‘it was Allah what done it’. It doesn’t matter though it’s just an answer for most to ‘are you convinced to any level of certainty that a god or gods exist?’

Being an atheist doesn’t automatically make you smarter or better at science or a nicer person.

I have a Christian brother in law who does a lot of work in helping poor people in conjunction with his opposite numbers at the local mosque. I don’t do stuff like that because I’m pretty selfish and don’t really care (why I’m not really a humanist although I’d like be)

Being able to present contextual arguments as to why his bible history is st or talk through why current hypothesis related to abiogenesis make his creation story laughable doesn’t make me the superior person here.

I also find some atheist’s ‘certainty’ as very similar to that of theists.

A simplified example. How did everything come into being?

‘I’m certain god created the universe!’

‘Ha ha of course not in came into being due to big bang,’

And that’s as far as many atheist can go…they’re certain that’s the real answer. It’s not.

The answer is in fact ‘our current best model for the ‘start’ of the universe is best explained thorough the Big Bang via prediction and observation, however there are different competing hypotheses and I wouldn’t want to hang my hat on one of those because I’m not clever enough to really understand much of it. Plus new ideas that don’t require a singularity are gaining traction and overall cosmology is in real flux right now.

So, honestly as an atheist I can’t answer the question with any certainty beyond ‘this is the best current model’. If it was your god though let’s see some evidence to back up the claim’.

This is why some theists get upset with me! The most honest answer to many of the big questions is ‘we don’t know and may never know during our lifetimes or ever’.

Of course I’m not going to kill someone or shun them because they have a different view on gravity or speciation or big bang or whatever.

God bless you all.

That’s quite a straw man around what atheists believe. You’re making it all far more complicated than it actually is.

Being an atheist doesn’t mean having an opinion on how the universe came into being or anything else. It simply means, on the question of which god or gods to believe in, that you have seen nothing that makes you believe any gods exist.

[GuigiaroBertone]

Even if there were a god, (to paraphrase Dawkins) he's the worst character in all fiction: A tyrant, an unforgiving bully, a control freak, a genocidal, homophobic, racist, misanthropic, infanticidal misogynist and above all a vain self-centred prick as he demands his creations to worship him- or else!

[jdw100]

Zigster said:

That’s quite a straw man around what atheists believe. You’re making it all far more complicated than it actually is.

Being an atheist doesn’t mean having an opinion on how the universe came into being or anything else. It simply means, on the question of which god or gods to believe in, that you have seen nothing that makes you believe any gods exist.

That’s exactly what I said. It’s the answer to one specific question.

The rest was in response to ‘some atheists are as thick as mince’.

My points being - it’s a person’s response to one particular question and that some atheists chuck around terms and certainties as much as some theists, with just as little understanding or knowledge of the subjects.

Edited by jdw100 on Tuesday 25th June 09:32

[Roofless Toothless]

I’ve been thinking about this very thing lately, as a consequence of my current reading project. I am working my way through the histories of the English monarchs from the Conqueror onwards. I am currently up to Edward IV.

It has occurred to me that the existence of God was universally accepted during the early Middle Ages. There wasn’t even a box to tick for atheist or agnostic. Of course, they managed to fall out with each other about which Pope to follow during the Schism, and the Lollards were always good for a bonfire if they dared to suggest anything departing from the accepted canon. The only thing they really came together on was how much fun it would be to trek out to the Middle East and mince up some Muslims. Even the worst of kings were at the same time pious and devoted Christians.

This made me start comparing the period with the USA today, and I have been very surprised at the surveys quoted in previous posts that reveal there are so many non believing Americans at present. It doesn’t come over like this at all. They must be very good at keeping their heads down.

It was very late in European history that atheism became at all common, or at least admitted to. Nietzsche may have been one of the first prominent figures, and even he, of course, is famous for saying that God is dead, not that he never existed. I can even remember in my own lifetime Bertrand Russell being questioned on TV about his atheism.

Much of the States seems to have got stuck in a time warp that missed recent European cultural history completely, at least those parts away from a few enlightened’ enclaves.

[CHLEMCBC]

MikeM6 said:

CHLEMCBC said:

I have a few dozen US acquaintances who consistently post drivel on socials and I watch a lot of political commentary. What's your first hand experience of travels across America?

Last year I travelled through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, then back up to Tennessee, across into Arkansas and then into Texas, before returning to Baton Rouge in Louisiana for a short stay. My brother in law lives there and so we stayed with him. As we were doing a road trip, we saw an awful lot more of the place then you would as a regular tourist.

The thing that struck me primarily about the people was how incredibly polite everyone was all the time, really quite something when you are used to British people. It was a little unnerving at first, but I actually grew to like it.

I did notice the deprivation in places, especially in a city like Baton Rouge. It was saddening and I felt like many people were facing real hardship, although I didn't see as much homelessness as I thought I might. Even still the wealth devide was eye opening.

I ended up talking to some very nice people in a bar in Texas, who were friendly and seemed intelligent, but also quite religious. I kept my atheist views to myself, in the same way that I did when I was in Cairo, Istanbul or in Tunisia (or in parts of the UK for that matter).

I had a great time at NASA in Houston, which showed the accomplishments of the American attitude to problem solving and how using arrogance to brute force your way through can lead to astonishing results.

I also enjoyed a trip to the shooting range in Baton Rouge, talking to people about gun ownership. They were intrigued to find out that we don't really have that many guns in private ownership, as to them it seemed strange that it wouldn't be allowed. Different lifestyles give you different perspectives.

If the Greens ever achieve their pledge of taking away your car (which they promise to do, even EVs), you would be horrified at the affront to your freedom, even though many die in car accidents etc. Change car for gun to get a sense of the principle involved.

Going there changed my perspective on the place. I wouldn't allow social media or internet commentary to become a substitute for real experience.

Edited by MikeM6 on Tuesday 25th June 07:15

I've found every US citizen I've met to be polite. On the surface. Also brash, loud and rude. Your car/gun analogy is specious. Guns are designed to kill people, cars aren't. Cars are useful in multiple ways, guns aren't.

[jdw100]

Roofless Toothless said:

I’ve been thinking about this very thing lately, as a consequence of my current reading project. I am working my way through the histories of the English monarchs from the Conqueror onwards. I am currently up to Edward IV.

It has occurred to me that the existence of God was universally accepted during the early Middle Ages. There wasn’t even a box to tick for atheist or agnostic. Of course, they managed to fall out with each other about which Pope to follow during the Schism, and the Lollards were always good for a bonfire if they dared to suggest anything departing from the accepted canon. The only thing they really came together on was how much fun it would be to trek out to the Middle East and mince up some Muslims. Even the worst of kings were at the same time pious and devoted Christians.

This made me start comparing the period with the USA today, and I have been very surprised at the surveys quoted in previous posts that reveal there are so many non believing Americans at present. It doesn’t come over like this at all. They must be very good at keeping their heads down.

It was very late in European history that atheism became at all common, or at least admitted to. Nietzsche may have been one of the first prominent figures, and even he, of course, is famous for saying that God is dead, not that he never existed. I can even remember in my own lifetime Bertrand Russell being questioned on TV about his atheism.

Much of the States seems to have got stuck in a time warp that missed recent European cultural history completely, at least those parts away from a few enlightened’ enclaves.

You might be interested in the story around the huge earthquake, fire and tsunami that destroyed Lisbon and its many cathedrals and how this links to the Enlightenment and related questioning of god/religion/the question of evil etc.

[MikeM6]

CHLEMCBC said:

I've found every US citizen I've met to be polite. On the surface. Also brash, loud and rude. Your car/gun analogy is specious. Guns are designed to kill people, cars aren't. Cars are useful in multiple ways, guns aren't.

I think you are tied too much to your own way of thinking. Try to broaden your mind a little and understand the underlying principle. It is a perception of an established freedom that is threatened, because views on it's legitimacy are disputed. Same as we may face with cars, guns, gas boilers, knives, the list goes on.

[CHLEMCBC]

MikeM6 said:

I think you are tied too much to your own way of thinking. Try to broaden your mind a little and understand the underlying principle. It is a perception of an established freedom that is threatened, because views on it's legitimacy are disputed. Same as we may face with cars, guns, gas boilers, knives, the list goes on.

I do of course understand that part of it, but your analogy doesn't really work for me. In any case, the perception that "someone is going to come for my guns" is wrong, so they're starting from an over defensive position which then seems to stifle any discussion. I know quite a few US cops and they're all so bloody gung ho it's frightening on occasion but mostly ridiculous.

[GuigiaroBertone]

CHLEMCBC said:

I've found every US citizen I've met to be polite. On the surface. Also brash, loud and rude. Your car/gun analogy is specious. Guns are designed to kill people, cars aren't. Cars are useful in multiple ways, guns aren't.

Exceptions apply of course, but I find courteous interactions with Americans to be more automatic/robotic. Yes they polite on the surface, lots of "have a good/nice day", (often addressed as Sir, when you say "thank you", they invariably reply "you're welcome" all very nice, but probably just a social norm/cultural thing rather than an inherent desire to be kinder to a fellow human.

Fully agree about the Guns. You need a car in the US. A handgun or automatic rifle only has one single purpose- and that isn't necessary or indeed "Christian".

I've sometimes thought that the politeness & courtesy might be partly out of fear. I've seen hardly any road rage when driving in the US- particularly in the permitless open carry states.

[IanJ9375]

Smollet said:

Very true. Religions don’t tend to be very tolerant of others.

Well if you don't believe in my made up god why should I believe in yours lol

[Forester1965]

Why do they keep religion? To maintain tribalism, control and explain away things they do when reason and logic can't.

This would be a fun test in certain parts of America;

You have to give up one thing. Your gun or your religion. Pick one.

[john2443]

jdw100 said:

...This is the the millennial, fully celibate, no property, children brought up as a group...

Errr

[MikeM6]

CHLEMCBC said:

MikeM6 said:

I think you are tied too much to your own way of thinking. Try to broaden your mind a little and understand the underlying principle. It is a perception of an established freedom that is threatened, because views on it's legitimacy are disputed. Same as we may face with cars, guns, gas boilers, knives, the list goes on.

I do of course understand that part of it, but your analogy doesn't really work for me. In any case, the perception that "someone is going to come for my guns" is wrong, so they're starting from an over defensive position which then seems to stifle any discussion. I know quite a few US cops and they're all so bloody gung ho it's frightening on occasion but mostly ridiculous.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but it is not for me or you to say that their views are legitimate or not. Gun ownership is for many a fundamental part of their culture, and sadly there are consequences to that. It does mean that law enforcement must be more ready to use it too.

Yes they are coming from a defensive position, but so would we if the Greens demand we surrender our cars and force us to use a bus instead. It might be for "the greater good" that we all give up something that we could get by without but love, but I for one would find it extremely tough to do so. I suspect that many would get defensive or even aggressive about it. It doesn't matter whether the car (or the gun) serves a legitimate purpose or not or whether it is essential or not.

It is quite tough to judge accurately from this side of the pond, without experience of this directly. Just like it's hard for a Green party voter living in Brighton to properly understand the implications for someone in rural Lincolnshire of not having their own car.

Judging Americans by a Euro centric thinking is the same as judging football for not being more like rugby. Understand both properly first, then judge.

[daqinggregg]

Due to my work, I found myself in the position of having quite a few American colleagues. One thing that struck me, was their openness, they really do tell you their life story, bones and all, when first meeting someone.

I wouldn’t say I’ve lived a sheltered life, but some of the stuff they come out with, is just beyond what I consider acceptable, you almost need an urban dictionary to follow the conversation. Countless occasions’ l had to point out “too much information.”

One colleague I worked with for around 10 years, I never heard swear/cuss, but his descriptions of his sexual encounters with his misses/hookers/strippers, were certainly eye opening. On one occasion, discussing the morality of various situations, one of our Canadian colleagues, looked like he needed a translator.

[Steve H]

Roofless Toothless said:

This made me start comparing the period with the USA today, and I have been very surprised at the surveys quoted in previous posts that reveal there are so many non believing Americans at present. It doesn’t come over like this at all. They must be very good at keeping their heads down.

For anyone in public life, especially politics, I am sure this is true.

Being publicly anti-religion would end up being the only thing you would be known for.


For the non-famous, I suspect it simply isn’t worth the argument when you are surrounded by believers and cannot use science, evidence or logic to make your point.

[jdw100]

john2443 said:

jdw100 said:

...This is the the millennial, fully celibate, no property, children brought up as a group...

Errr

Millennial religion so expecting the imminent return of Christ and an armageddon for everyone outside of the religion.

On this basis, why have kids? Hence celibacy.

However, people were joining them as they gained in popularity. These people brought their children with them. These kids were cared for communally.

Giving them both a rule of celibacy but having to look after existing children.

Armageddon didn’t happen, their prophet/female version of Jesus died and so the rules changed so they could adapt.

The celibacy thing got dropped. Kids still got brought up communally, towns were built and they got into furniture making.

They became the Shakers dropping the Quaker from the Shaking Quakers and the original Quakers stayed the Quakers.

[CHLEMCBC]

MikeM6 said:

I appreciate where you are coming from, but it is not for me or you to say that their views are legitimate or not. Gun ownership is for many a fundamental part of their culture, and sadly there are consequences to that. It does mean that law enforcement must be more ready to use it too.

Yes they are coming from a defensive position, but so would we if the Greens demand we surrender our cars and force us to use a bus instead. It might be for "the greater good" that we all give up something that we could get by without but love, but I for one would find it extremely tough to do so. I suspect that many would get defensive or even aggressive about it. It doesn't matter whether the car (or the gun) serves a legitimate purpose or not or whether it is essential or not.

It is quite tough to judge accurately from this side of the pond, without experience of this directly. Just like it's hard for a Green party voter living in Brighton to properly understand the implications for someone in rural Lincolnshire of not having their own car.

Judging Americans by a Euro centric thinking is the same as judging football for not being more like rugby. Understand both properly first, then judge.

Nobody's proposing taking them away.

[Pitre]

I watched an excellent film the other day... "The Invention of Lying" by Ricky Gervais.

Stonking debunking of religion ('the man in the sky' ), I can fully understand why it wasn't a huge success in the USA.