Leaderboard

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." -- Penn Jillette *** Lately, articles about the increasing percentage of Americans who aren't "religious" -- like this and this -- have been popping up. Please consider the italicized quote above any time you encounter one of these. Why? Because (1) In today's increasingly tribalistic, anti-individualist Zeitgeist, it would appear that the first impulse is to lump together any group of people to which one can apply a label. (2) So many people lack intellectual rigor that many labels are next to meaningless, anyway. The first piece, about "nonreligious" people includes some whose stated beliefs include all the hallmarks of religion; they just aren't enrolled in a church:Although he doesn't believe in organized religion, he believes in God and basic ethical precepts. "People should be treated equally as long as they treat other people equally. That's my spirituality if you want to call it that."Indeed, somewhere, buried in the piece, is the closest thing it comes to offering its own definition of "nonreligious:" They. Really. Don't. Like. Organized. Religion. Given how "the nones' diversity splinters them into myriad subgroups," don't expect to be able to learn anything meaningful from the rest of the piece. Even the second article, about "atheists" talks about people I'd say are actually religious:Image by François Barraud, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.Atheists also have different interpretations of what it means to not believe. While nearly all self-described atheists don't believe in the God described in the Judeo-Christian Bible, 23% do believe in God or some other higher power or spiritual force in the universe, according to a Pew Research Center report published in January. [bold added]With that much latitude in the term, it is ridiculous to wonder -- as the article starts out doing -- why more atheists are reluctant to volunteer that fact about themselves. The negative stereotypes and bigotry on the part of many religious people don't help, but if a term has been emptied of all meaning, why bandy it about? I am an atheist, and would describe myself as circumspect, but not shy about it. I reject nearly everything about religion, especially professing to believe things absent evidence, and equating morality to a set of supernatural orders that have nothing to do with reason or life on earth. These two things are direct threats to a life proper to a rational animal. If I have a realistic chance of making my world a better place by challenging these evil practices, I will do so. (This is the not shy part.) If doing so will change nothing, except expose me or loved ones to harm by bigots or actual thugs, I will not. (This is the circumspect part.) Self-sacrifice is against my moral code. But simply saying I'm an atheist, or I'm not religious at all is only the start of a conversation. Religion is not the only alternative out there for moral guidance or reflection. Not adhering to religion is not the only aspect of my thinking and my personality. Stating that I am an atheist is thus something that I would hope would at least provoke thought in another, and perhaps require a conversation on my part. The person hearing that from me, or the occasion calling for me to say this, has to be worth it. I find the widespread need to "come out" as something that is so common today both sad and puzzling. Our culture causes most people to feel alienated because it is increasingly blind to or disdainful of the individual. Many people yearn for some measure of visibility, and aren't getting it. But past a certain point, it is puzzling that many people have such a weak sense of themselves that they will compromise on almost anything to "belong." I'm not sure what to say about that, except, perhaps to advise that one should well understand one's reasons for disclosing one's beliefs, or not. Fashion is probably the worst reason to do either. -- CAVLink to Original

A few more are sitting up and taking notice of a glaring anomaly, the 'numbers' given are those accepted without question from - a Jihadi terror group and its supporters, from whom the disingenuous claim of 'genocide' originates, the 'numbers' fuelling the lie - picked up and promoted with glee by sundry Judeophobes. Too late this Newsweek piece, the slander was popularly embedded in the first days after Oct7, in advance of the first Gazan casualties. But I notice a level of panic setting in, Hamasophile writers and Tubers and mass activists are not getting their way as expected in saving the remnants of their adulated hero-killers with "humanitarian ceasefire" demands - this time the IDF shows it will not cave to global sentiment and is committed to going all the way. (The huger threat is the Hezbollah Army's coordinated attack in the North, holding back, waiting to see what happens there, and why Israel must wrap up the Gaza war quickly). This is "existential" self-preservation for Israel (for any who are concerned). https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/world/a-more-accurate-accounting-of-the-war-in-gaza-opinion/ar-BB1ka9IG?rc=1&ocid=socialshare&cvid=fa1e2985647b4284842206f5d0432e0e&ei=11