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

[Paseofreak]

Pray and donate away! But to print unsubstantiated drivel as fact? I don't know how society escapes the downfall of real journalism. The DOK is just awful. Making Oklahomans dumber by the day.

[Mel]

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

At least we now know the answer is 42.

[Chadanth]

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?

Wow. That may be, and this is saying a lot, the dumbest, most intellectually dishonest and thoughtless article I've ever read in the DOK. Just wow.

[Prunepicker]

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

I just read the article. What did you find that was ridiculous and blatantly offensive?

[Chadanth]

I just read the article. What did you find that was ridiculous and blatantly offensive?

1. there’s no denying that people genuinely devoted to a religion emphasizing love for others, denial of self, and belief that one answers to a higher power have generated far more societal improvement than what’s been rendered by those pursuing a self-directed “do whatever makes you feel good” ethos.
I know of no aeheists who live by that ethos.

2. Our nation is undoubtedly a better place when there are more of the former than the latter.
A statement offered without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

3. think society has reached a level of enlightenment where the “ancient” solutions no longer apply is the height of folly. And in Oklahoma, citizens certainly struggle with challenges inherent to the human condition. The state ranks high in violent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and similar societal ills.
This statement alone disproves their thesis, as Oklahoma is a pretty religious state in a fairly religious country.

4. A classroom full of pregnant teenage atheists would still be a sign of societal decay.
Does aethism cause pregnancy? No.

5. 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.
Another statement offered without evidence.

6. Internationally, Christians are among the few traveling to Ebola hot zones and similar trouble spots to render aid. There is not an atheist equivalent to those efforts
While there may not be many specifically aethist organizations that do outreach. There are countless organizations that are not religious in nature that do. For example, after the Nepal earthquake, Team RWB was there digging people out of rubble and missionaries were handing out bibles. Who did the real work there? Doctors without borders is a secular organization that does amazing work worldwide.

So, basically, the whole article is junk.

[catch22]

Great topic, and glad to see it's maintained a civil tone.

Over the past few years, as I have broken out of the mold, traveled more (even though it has all been domestic), opened up to new ideas and such. I have found religion to have taken a very distant backseat. It's not that I don't have time -- it's that I feel it has lost its purpose.

Growing up, I always believed if I stopped praying, I would surely die soon thereafter. I don't mean a literal fear of my heart stopping, but I always thought something would happen. My guardian angels would turn away and something bad would happen.

It's been years since I have been in a church, and probably several years since I have actually prayed. And life is still going on.

I can't properly explain how I feel about it all. I'm not an atheist, but I struggle to call myself a Christian, either.

The idea that there is a being capable of reading every persons thoughts, building a universe out of nothing, setting life in motion, and governing the laws of man -- sounds just as far fetched to me as the big bang theory -- it to me just seems equally as improbable that life could form out of pure chance from some rocks banging together in space.

So, I don't know what I believe is true. And I'm not in any real hurry to find out. And I think a lot of my fellow Earthlings in their 20-30's feel the same as I.

I do know that the Bible, as well as other religious books are not BAD. The Bible teaches many excellent life principles. It's good to treat others how you want to be treated, to not lie or steal. To help those who have fallen down. To save your resources in the good times to withstand the bad. To not cheat on your wife and family. But there are also some things in the Bible I can't agree with.

It's a touchy topic, but I wanted to present my perspective from my demographic.

[elitespy]

Great topic, and glad to see it's maintained a civil tone.

Over the past few years, as I have broken out of the mold, traveled more (even though it has all been domestic), opened up to new ideas and such. I have found religion to have taken a very distant backseat. It's not that I don't have time -- it's that I feel it has lost its purpose.

Growing up, I always believed if I stopped praying, I would surely die soon thereafter. I don't mean a literal fear of my heart stopping, but I always thought something would happen. My guardian angels would turn away and something bad would happen.

It's been years since I have been in a church, and probably several years since I have actually prayed. And life is still going on.

I can't properly explain how I feel about it all. I'm not an atheist, but I struggle to call myself a Christian, either.

The idea that there is a being capable of reading every persons thoughts, building a universe out of nothing, setting life in motion, and governing the laws of man -- sounds just as far fetched to me as the big bang theory -- it to me just seems equally as improbable that life could form out of pure chance from some rocks banging together in space.

So, I don't know what I believe is true. And I'm not in any real hurry to find out. And I think a lot of my fellow Earthlings in their 20-30's feel the same as I.

I do know that the Bible, as well as other religious books are not BAD. The Bible teaches many excellent life principles. It's good to treat others how you want to be treated, to not lie or steal. To help those who have fallen down. To save your resources in the good times to withstand the bad. To not cheat on your wife and family. But there are also some things in the Bible I can't agree with.

It's a touchy topic, but I wanted to present my perspective from my demographic.

I have to say this sums me up pretty well. I'm a 27 year old male from a family of Baptist preachers, I got out on my own and started trying to figure out my own way. I'm pretty sure I'm in that same spot where I don't really call myself a Christian or an Atheist, just a young guy figuring out life and right now in this time of my life church doesn't really have that much influence on me. Who knows in 20 years I might fall back to what I was taught all my life or may I pave a new direction for myself and my family. Like Catch22 said, I'm in no hurry to figure it all out.

[Teo9969]

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.

Did I miss something or did the DOK become a state-sponsored newspaper?

Nearly all positions about all things are promoted through publishing. And nearly all positions about all things are offensive to some people.

Where did the premise that these are "supposedly educated folks capable of critical thought" come from?

In case you all don't know this, the position articulated in the article is the position that very likely the MAJORITY of Oklahomans agree with. If you are offended by the article, you are likely offended by the beliefs of a vast majority of the state in which the topic of this internet forum resides.

The Oklahoman is the #1 newspaper in Oklahoma City because it represents the vantage point, the care, and quality of thought of the average Central Oklahoman and citizen of OKC.

To be quite blunt, it reflects just as poorly on the individual offended by this than those writing it.

[LocoAko]

Did I miss something or did the DOK become a state-sponsored newspaper?

Nearly all positions about all things are promoted through publishing. And nearly all positions about all things are offensive to some people.

Where did the premise that these are "supposedly educated folks capable of critical thought" come from?

In case you all don't know this, the position articulated in the article is the position that very likely the MAJORITY of Oklahomans agree with. If you are offended by the article, you are likely offended by the beliefs of a vast majority of the state in which the topic of this internet forum resides.

The Oklahoman is the #1 newspaper in Oklahoma City because it represents the vantage point, the care, and quality of thought of the average Central Oklahoman and citizen of OKC.

If the vast majority of Oklahomans think Christians are better people than atheists and that there is little/no charity work done by atheists who are living by a "do whatever makes you feel good" mantra, then yeah, I disagree with most people in this area (and don't feel the least bit bad about doing so). As an atheist, it is an offensive notion.

You're right that the Oklahoman isn't state-sponsored and they are allowed to publish whatever they like, so that's fair. It is still disappointing to me to see such a divisive article pushed by the staff, though. As the city's main newspaper not [explicitly?] geared toward a particular focus area/demographic, you'd think their goal would be to report the news while maintaining respectful opinions of the range of readers. Maybe not? This wasn't one editorial written by a single reader and submitted under their name -- it was published by the entire editorial board.

And I don't recall ever referring to these folks as "supposedly educated people capable of critical thought", but as to that notion, it isn't crazy to think that the board for the state's largest city's newspaper would fit that bill, is it? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Plenty of people in this thread have chimed in as to why this article is offensive (with particular thanks to Chadanth, so I'm not sure why you're only addressing me.

To be quite blunt, it reflects just as poorly on the individual offended by this than those writing it.

How?

This article reminds me somwhat of Joe Klein's cover story article in TIME after the 2013 Moore tornado. (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/20/ca...e-us/#comments). You can look in the comments to see what most readers thought of his dig on "secular humanists" and their supposed lack of volunteering/charity work.

Anyway, you're clearly determined to defend the paper's editorial and don't seem particularly willing to understand why it would be offensive to anyone except Christians, so we may have to just agree to disagree.

[Teo9969]

If the vast majority of Oklahomans think Christians are better people than atheists and that there is little/no charity work done by atheists who are living by a "do whatever makes you feel good" mantra, then yeah, I disagree with most people in this area (and don't feel the least bit bad about doing so). As an atheist, it is an offensive notion.

You're right that the Oklahoman isn't state-sponsored and they are allowed to publish whatever they like, so that's fair. It is still disappointing to me to see such a divisive article pushed by the staff, though. As the city's main newspaper not [explicitly?] geared toward a particular focus area/demographic, you'd think their goal would be to report the news while maintaining respectful opinions of the range of readers. Maybe not? This wasn't one editorial written by a single reader and submitted under their name -- it was published by the entire editorial board.

And I don't recall ever referring to these folks as "supposedly educated people capable of critical thought", but as to that notion, it isn't crazy to think that the board for the state's largest city's newspaper would fit that bill, is it? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Plenty of people in this thread have chimed in as to why this article is offensive (with particular thanks to Chadanth, so I'm not sure why you're only addressing me.

I'm not addressing just you, I just happened to quote your post because it was the starting point. Sorry that I wasn't clear there.

How?

This article reminds me somwhat of Joe Klein's cover story article in TIME after the 2013 Moore tornado. (Can Service Save Us? | TIME.com). You can look in the comments to see what most readers thought of his dig on "secular humanists" and their supposed lack of volunteering/charity work.

Anyway, you're clearly determined to defend the paper's editorial and don't seem particularly willing to understand why it would be offensive to anyone except Christians, so we may have to just agree to disagree.

I'm not defending the article and never have. I dismissed it as soon as I saw "Daily Oklahoman" let alone the content.

Choosing to be offended by something that is entirely dismissible reflects poorly because it demonstrates the following:

1. The lack of willingness to understand how someone could arrive to such conclusions regardless of how senseless they might be. This is the most sure way to hinder progress through conversation. Is the other side just as guilty. Absolutely, maybe even more so. But if neither side is in the same house, how can they sit down at the same table and even start a conversation?

2. A lack of understanding about the severity of the article vis-a-vis ideas that are far more dangerous. The article was pontificating and lacked any sense of coherence. It's quality was at about a 10th grade level. Being offended by a 10th grade level article is myopic. There is plenty of ignorance worth taking exception to, and fighting against. This article was worthy of a "LOL!" and nothing more.

3. A lack of foresight: About 3 years ago I was talking with some LGBT&Allied friends and they were convinced we were 15-20+ years away from gay marriage being legalized. They didn't understand how I could be apathetic about being a voice calling for equal rights: Aside from my personal political beliefs, it was also more than apparent that we were 5-10 years away from becoming legal at the national level, and it is well on its way to being a closed case within the next 5 years.

The very statistics that prompted that article show that atheists and unaffiliated are growing, which means their voice and normalcy are growing, which makes the article increasingly in the minority and completely inconsequential.

4. It shows a disposition toward expending energy in places that aren't worthy of that energy, even if it's just slight. If someone writes an article on why more cops should shoot more young black kids, that would be worthy of offense. If someone writes an article about why black people are out of favor with God because they have the mark of Cain…well that's just ridiculous. Both articles have "offensive" material, but only one is actually worthy of taking offense to given the nature of today's socio-political landscape.

[Prunepicker]

..., So, basically, the whole article is junk.

In other words there was nothing ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

[kelroy55]

In other words there was nothing ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

Nope, everything Chadanth listed showed it was ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

[hoya]

Nope, everything Chadanth listed showed it was ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

You know what? I don't really give a damn if someone is offended.

The article isn't very good. But saying "I'm offended" just tells me that you have thin skin and you probably need to toughen up. You don't have a right to have people tiptoe around your opinions in fear of saying something you might get upset by.

[LocoAko]

You know what? I don't really give a damn if someone is offended.

The article isn't very good. But saying "I'm offended" just tells me that you have thin skin and you probably need to toughen up. You don't have a right to have people tiptoe around your opinions in fear of saying something you might get upset by.

Really? That's what you gathered from my post?

I specifically cleared up that I'm not losing sleep over this. And also stated my general view of the newspaper based on all of their publishings (spoiler alert: not very good), so I don't care too much. Just saying I took offense to the way things were presented doesn't mean I'm crying into my empty tub of Ben & Jerry's. I find the Westboro Baptist Church extremely offensive but I barely give them any thought and mostly laugh it off. Perhaps I have a different opinion on what constitutes finding something offensive?

Maybe it was a poor word choice, but the outcry over the use of the word "offensive" is easily the most ridiculous part of this discussion at this point. It seems there's a bigger deal about that than I even made about the original editorial. Nevermind the fact that dictating what other people should or shouldn't be offended by is a crappy hobby and likely a fruitless endeavor. Perhaps I should've said it "disappointed" me?

[hoya]

Really? That's what you gathered from my post?

I specifically cleared up that I'm not losing sleep over this. And also stated my general view of the newspaper based on all of their publishings (spoiler alert: not very good), so I don't care too much. Just saying I took offense to the way things were presented doesn't mean I'm crying into my empty tub of Ben & Jerry's. I find the Westboro Baptist Church extremely offensive but I barely give them any thought and mostly laugh it off. Perhaps I have a different opinion on what constitutes finding something offensive?

Maybe it was a poor word choice, but the outcry over the use of the word "offensive" is easily the most ridiculous part of this discussion at this point. It seems there's a bigger deal about that than I even made about the original editorial. Nevermind the fact that dictating what other people should or shouldn't be offended by is a crappy hobby and likely a fruitless endeavor. Perhaps I should've said it "disappointed" me?

Actually I was responding to kelroy55's post. I'll try and respond more in depth when I have a bit more time. Can't go fully into it now.

[Pete]

Let's stop addressing each other personally and get back to discussing the subject.

Thanks.

[Ginkasa]

You know what? I don't really give a damn if someone is offended.

The article isn't very good. But saying "I'm offended" just tells me that you have thin skin and you probably need to toughen up. You don't have a right to have people tiptoe around your opinions in fear of saying something you might get upset by.

People do have a right to express their opinions regarding someone else's opinion. Your post, indeed, could very easily be simplified to "I'm offended." If someone, like the DOK editorial board, puts something out there it becomes open to criticism and commentary from any angle including regarding its offensiveness or lack thereof.

[Chadanth]

In other words there was nothing ridiculous or blatantly offensive.

It was all ridiculous. Offensive, not so much. Nothing there was substantiated by anything other than biased conjecture and misinformation.

[Chadanth]

You know what? I don't really give a damn if someone is offended.

The article isn't very good. But saying "I'm offended" just tells me that you have thin skin and you probably need to toughen up. You don't have a right to have people tiptoe around your opinions in fear of saying something you might get upset by.

Maybe I could have been clear, I didn't find it offensive any more than I would find it offensive when a child says something foolish. That's the level of thought that went into the article, for what it's worth.

[Teo9969]

It was all ridiculous. Offensive, not so much. Nothing there was substantiated by anything other than biased conjecture and misinformation.

This.

[hoya]

At the end of the day, we all think that our own beliefs are correct. That's why they are our beliefs. If we didn't think they were correct, we would believe something else.

I think what we are seeing here is the conflict between those who believe that the specifics of our spiritual beliefs are important, and those who think our spiritual beliefs don't matter. The article is written from the first perspective. And I think we can all agree that it is written poorly. This doesn't mean that the position the article takes is invalid, however. And I certainly don't think the position is offensive -- it's just poorly delivered in this case.

[Chadanth]

At the end of the day, we all think that our own beliefs are correct. That's why they are our beliefs. If we didn't think they were correct, we would believe something else.

I think what we are seeing here is the conflict between those who believe that the specifics of our spiritual beliefs are important, and those who think our spiritual beliefs don't matter. The article is written from the first perspective. And I think we can all agree that it is written poorly. This doesn't mean that the position the article takes is invalid, however. And I certainly don't think the position is offensive -- it's just poorly delivered in this case.

It's more than simply poorly delivered, it's full of negative opinions and naked conjecture, none of which is supported by fact. It's a fantasy. It's one thing if the article would have stayed on the community and social value of religion, which most atheists will concede, but veered off into some stupid point about atheist teen pregnancies and atheists providing no community service.

[hoya]

It's more than simply poorly delivered, it's full of negative opinions and naked conjecture, none of which is supported by fact. It's a fantasy. It's one thing if the article would have stayed on the community and social value of religion, which most atheists will concede, but veered off into some stupid point about atheist teen pregnancies and atheists providing no community service.

Yeah that atheist teen pregnancy thing was pretty out there.

[jerrywall]

Yeah that atheist teen pregnancy thing was pretty out there.

I disagree. The statement was simply that a classroom full of pregnant teenage atheists vs a classroom full of pregnant teenage Christians are both equally a sign of societal decay. I'm not sure I can disagree.

Stating that regardless of religion societal decay is societal decay seems like something that would be uncontroversial.

[Chadanth]

I disagree. The statement was simply that a classroom full of pregnant teenage atheists vs a classroom full of pregnant teenage Christians are both equally a sign of societal decay. I'm not sure I can disagree.

Stating that regardless of religion societal decay is societal decay seems like something that would be uncontroversial.

But teen pregnancy is on the decline, significantly, so that's not a real example of anything. The article was clearly trying to paint a correlation between lack of morals and atheism, which is patently false.

Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing - The Office of Adolescent Health

Then you have stuff like this:
Phil Robertson Of 'Duck Dynasty' Reveals Bizarre Atheist Rape And Murder Fantasy

Or the movie "God's Not Dead", which paints atheists as cruel and angry people. It's all fantasy and confirmation bias, not borne in fact.