Study shows sharp decline in Christians as a percentage of population in U.S.

[zookeeper]

Not sure if this was posted earlier as I didn't read all comments, but many other highly developed countries have seen this trend a decade or so ago. The U.S. if I remember right is one of the few 1st world countries that still had a high religious population.

The other thing I dislike when people associate someone that says they aren't religious to someone that is automatically an atheist. I find this more often than not to be false, as most are agnostic.

Very well said. When you get right down to it, until that moment when we take our final breath, nobody knows. In fact, everyone, at one time or another, is agnostic. There's always a sliver of doubt whether you are a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Whatever.

[onthestrip]

Very well said. When you get right down to it, until that moment when we take our final breath, nobody knows. In fact, everyone, at one time or another, is agnostic. There's always a sliver of doubt whether you are a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Whatever.

Actually, everyone, Christians included, are atheists up to a point. They are an atheist to all gods but their own. The only difference between a Christian and atheist is an atheist believes in one less god.

[hoya]

Actually, everyone, Christians included, are atheists up to a point. They are an atheist to all gods but their own. The only difference between a Christian and atheist is an atheist believes in one less god.

I see this quote fairly frequently. Honestly it seems like a snarky, condescending response to legitimate discussion.

[Zuplar]

I see this quote fairly frequently. Honestly it seems like a snarky, condescending response to legitimate discussion.

I call it the smartass approach, but then again, I'm old fashioned.

[David]

It's an abuse of the definition of the word atheist to actually ask the question "Why do you believe in Jehovah but not Krishna". It's technically not a bad question, but it's kind of a jackass way of asking it and you can be sure that whoever said it like that isn't actually interested in the answer.

[Teo9969]

^^^ It's not a legitimate question/idea for an informed person because an informed person understands the terminologies necessary to tackle the question. But then again, a wide range of atheists are pseudo-thinkers (as are a wide range of Christians). Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. are hardly great philosophers…they're populist thinkers the same way that Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc. are…neither do the world any favors by advancing dialogue…they simply retrench their followers along battle lines to win an argument rather than genuinely advance the historical conversation of theology and philosophy.

As for the Evangelical/Fundamentalist question. Fundamentalists are pretty self explanatory. There is a margin somewhere between EV and Fundi that one journalist I know calls "fundangelical" and that margin has increased quite a bit in the last decade.

Evangelicals do, contrary to belief, have plenty of wiggle room to believe a variety of theologies. Campus Crusade for Christ is probably the quintessential Evangelical organization and they are pretty ecumenical. There are plenty of mainline denomination churches that are essentially evangelical even they belong to a body that is less so. United Methodists are a great example because they have a fairly loose take on scripture that allows individuals (and individual congregations) to arrive at their own stance. That allows some churches/members to fit in fairly easily with EVs, and others to be quite liberal and falling a bit further from that tree.

The important thing for Evangelicals is that there is a major element of sharing your faith with those to whom the individual feels called by God to witness. But whether or not one is Calvinist/Arminian, believes in Infant Baptism or not or Immersion/Sprinkling, Tongues/no Tongues, etc. doesn't really matter as far as Evangelicals are concerned. The basic belief though is that the Bible is the Inerrant word of God (though not ALWAYS to be taken literally…and this is why there is less force against things like gay marriage, women preachers, etc. in the EV church than the Fundamentalist church) and that one must have some sort of relationship with Jesus Christ (the definition of which is very volatile even for believers of a similar mindset) and that that is bore out in a lifestyle where some form of sharing that relationship with other believers and non-believers alike is an important belief held by the believer.

[bchris02]

^^^ It's not a legitimate question/idea for an informed person because an informed person understands the terminologies necessary to tackle the question. But then again, a wide range of atheists are pseudo-thinkers (as are a wide range of Christians). Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. are hardly great philosophers…they're populist thinkers the same way that Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, etc. are…neither do the world any favors by advancing dialogue…they simply retrench their followers along battle lines to win an argument rather than genuinely advance the historical conversation of theology and philosophy.

As for the Evangelical/Fundamentalist question. Fundamentalists are pretty self explanatory. There is a margin somewhere between EV and Fundi that one journalist I know calls "fundangelical" and that margin has increased quite a bit in the last decade.

Evangelicals do, contrary to belief, have plenty of wiggle room to believe a variety of theologies. Campus Crusade for Christ is probably the quintessential Evangelical organization and they are pretty ecumenical. There are plenty of mainline denomination churches that are essentially evangelical even they belong to a body that is less so. United Methodists are a great example because they have a fairly loose take on scripture that allows individuals (and individual congregations) to arrive at their own stance. That allows some churches/members to fit in fairly easily with EVs, and others to be quite liberal and falling a bit further from that tree.

The important thing for Evangelicals is that there is a major element of sharing your faith with those to whom the individual feels called by God to witness. But whether or not one is Calvinist/Arminian, believes in Infant Baptism or not or Immersion/Sprinkling, Tongues/no Tongues, etc. doesn't really matter as far as Evangelicals are concerned. The basic belief though is that the Bible is the Inerrant word of God (though not ALWAYS to be taken literally…and this is why there is less force against things like gay marriage, women preachers, etc. in the EV church than the Fundamentalist church) and that one must have some sort of relationship with Jesus Christ (the definition of which is very volatile even for believers of a similar mindset) and that that is bore out in a lifestyle where some form of sharing that relationship with other believers and non-believers alike is an important belief held by the believer.

All great points. I especially like that you pointed out "fundangelical." I would say this is where denominations like the Southern Baptists and Pentecostals fall. I was raised in an extremely right-wing, Independent Fundamental Baptist church but attended a Southern Baptist church for a while after getting out on my own. The biggest difference is the IFB forbids partaking in any part of secular culture with the exception of 1950s TV shows and music (I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith, etc), does not allow any Bible versions other than the KJV, and does not allow modern worship music in their services. IFBs also heavily encourage homeschooling or IFB Christian school. Mainstream Southern Baptists give the adherent a little more freedom on those things and usually have modern-style worship services. However, they still align closely with the fundamentalists on certain things such as a literal interpretation of the Bible and most of them encourage their members to actively support right-wing political candidates. Both have a fascination with the end times. There is a more liberal wing of the Southern Baptists known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship that aligns more with the Methodist line of thought and is purely evangelical, not fundamentalist.

[elitespy]

I grew up IFB and even went to an unaccredited IFB Bible College here in Oklahoma City. I can attest to the IFB forbidding anything out in the secular world, I remember my youth pastor telling me that I shouldn't go to the movie theater, or play certain video games. It was kind of frustrating and my parents actually got tired of it. My youth pastor wasn't my father and they didn't like that he was trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't do. That is why I won't put my son through the IFB or really any church to be honest. I have such a strong distaste for how the IFB does things now. I mean the Bible College I went to was like stepping into a whole other world, girls only in skirts guys in jeans with their T-shirts tucked in. Yeah how is that going to help them out in the real world? Sorry, getting off on a tangent, just trying to say people think Southern Baptist and IFB are the same thing, they are definitely not, Southern Baptists are super liberal compared to IFB.

[zookeeper]

Windsor Hills Baptist? They are the ones that put their students on the street corners holding the bible and preaching fire and brimstone. It is very much a part of the Independent Fundamental Baptist church scene. Jim Vineyard was the pastor for years, his son has the church now. It makes Olivet Baptist look like some liberal outpost. Seriously. Also, there have been many allegations at that church and school concerning sexual molestation. In fact, it's been a big issue in those circles.

[bchris02]

Windsor Hills Baptist? They are the ones that put their students on the street corners holding the bible and preaching fire and brimstone. It is very much a part of the Independent Fundamental Baptist church scene. Jim Vineyard was the pastor for years, his son has the church now. It makes Olivet Baptist look like some liberal outpost. Seriously.

Southwest Baptist, where I went as a teenager, does this also. You can find them in Bricktown with a bullhorn on any given Friday night passing out "chick tracts."

[Prunepicker]

There's always a sliver of doubt whether you are a Christian, Hindu, Muslim,
Atheist, Whatever.

Not always. I see no reason to have any doubt in something I know to be true.

[zookeeper]

Not always. I see no reason to have any doubt in something I know to be true.

How do you know it to be true? KNOW. Not "have faith" that it's true, but know?
Because the bible tells you so?

Every person of faith points to their holy book as "proof" of their position. But they don't know. Nobody does. To say anything else would certify you as a complete crank or give you the Nobel Prize.

[elitespy]

Southwest Baptist, where I went as a teenager, does this also. You can find them in Bricktown with a bullhorn on any given Friday night passing out "chick tracts."

Yep, Southwest Baptist here as well, and Heartland Baptist Bible College. Oh man.... =/

[Teo9969]

How do you know it to be true? KNOW. Not "have faith" that it's true, but know?
Because the bible tells you so?

Every person of faith points to their holy book as "proof" of their position. But they don't know. Nobody does. To say anything else would certify you as a complete crank or give you the Nobel Prize.

Because there are epistemic frameworks that function thusly.

[Prunepicker]

How do you know it to be true? KNOW. Not "have faith" that it's true, but know?

The fact that nobody has produced sufficient evidence to show otherwise.

[zookeeper]

The fact that nobody has produced sufficient evidence to show otherwise.

I try to explain that's exactly why I believe advanced mice from another galaxy created our planet. But people laugh.

[Chadanth]

I try to explain that's exactly why I believe advanced mice from another galaxy created our planet. But people laugh.

No one has proven otherwise. Seems to be a good enough standard for others.

[Chadanth]

To address the main point of this thread, I think that a lot of young people and moderates leave the church due to most churches holding onto antiquated views on science and social issues, at odds with empirical evidence and modernity.

Some will probably return, later in life, for the social aspects or due to a revival of their faith, but overall, I see this as a positive trend.

[LocoAko]

The Daily Oklahoman published an editorial on the subject that I find ridiculous and blatantly offensive.

Declining Christian numbers in Oklahoma, elsewhere no cause for celebration | NewsOK.com

It blows my mind that this is our newspaper now (along with Clickbait articles galore), but I guess there's a reason it was determined to be the worst newspaper in America, huh?

[Teo9969]

The Daily Oklahoman published an editorial on the subject that I find ridiculous and blatantly offensive.

Declining Christian numbers in Oklahoma, elsewhere no cause for celebration | NewsOK.com

It blows my mind that this is our newspaper now (along with Clickbait articles galore), but I guess there's a reason it was determined to be the worst newspaper in America, huh?

I don't understand being offended at these type of things. It obviously comes from an ignorant and uneducated point of view so why let it offend? There comes a point at which the voices of those not in directly speaking into your life need to lose their ability to offend, or it stunts societal progress.

The author is clearly concerned about a variety of things and in part because the author has been fed misinformation that isn't necessarily true, has obscured vision about what's really going on, and doesn't understand the bigger picture. There are many things she said in the article that have maybe been true in certain circumstances "But atheism’s track record at motiving constructive responses to such woes is negligible; in some cases, atheism even provides a ready excuse for engaging in acts that fuel social problems." Certainly that's anywhere from completely wrong to simply misguided, but there are points on which the point is actually true (see the history of states [non-US] who uphold a no-religion policy and how good lacking their human rights are.)

But none of that actually means that Atheists are bad people, and none of that means that they are incapable of systematically creating ethical systems that advance society in a unanimously agreed upon "good" direction. It's an ignorant writer simply afraid of the "other" and voicing that fear. But it's really not much different than an atheist ignorantly saying that "Religion is the cause of most wars" as if the root cause of bad things in the world were something other than our humanity, and bad tropes (usually couched as sins in religion) which transcend religion…as if we wouldn't (and haven't) come up with other reasons to steal, kill, and destroy the "other".

I'm not by any means defending the writer, but it's simply not worthy of offense.

[Paseofreak]

The fact that this position is being promoted through publishing it is what's offensive and disturbing. This was issued as a collectively agreed upon stance by the Oklahoman Editorial Board. This is not simply the opinion of a single person, it is the considered opinion of a group of supposedly educated folks capable of critical thought, yet it officially includes the faults you point out. That to me is quite offensive.

[LocoAko]

The fact that this position is being promoted through publishing it is what's offensive and disturbing. This was issued as a collectively agreed upon stance by the Oklahoman Editorial Board. This is not simply the opinion of a single person, it is the considered opinion of a group of supposedly educated folks capable of critical thought, yet it officially includes the faults you point out. That to me is quite offensive.

This -- you said it much better than I could have. I'm not losing sleep over it, but I find it embarrassing and troubling that the official newspaper of a major city publishes stuff like this on behalf of the newspaper.

[Pete]

This -- you said it much better than I could have. I'm not losing sleep over it, but I find it embarrassing and troubling that the official newspaper of a major city publishes stuff like this on behalf of the newspaper.

They run a prayer on the front page every day. And they Tweet it first thing every morning.

And remember, OPUBCO was purchased in 2011by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz who has personally funded tons of Christian causes as well as anti-gay rights legislation.

[LocoAko]

They run a prayer on the front page every day. And they Tweet it first thing every morning.

And remember, OPUBCO was purchased in 2011by Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz who has personally funded tons of Christian causes as well as anti-gay rights legislation.

I've heard about the prayer but don't get paper copies and have never seen it on Twitter for some reason. It's still super strange to me, honestly. I just can't imagine anything like that back home. As to the rest of it -- didn't know that, but I can't say I'm surprised. Sigh. Articles like Steve's about local developments are just about the only reason I ever read it. Political/religious issues aside, this article the other day was the final straw for me in terms of taking them even remotely seriously:

[Pete]

They started running the front-page prayer sometime in the mid-80's: