Theists who become atheists

[Jack]

And how does this nonexistent strawman refute the correlation between the glory days of the openly Christian attitude of the fifties to our falling state on the heals of ever increasing secularism that we are experiencing today? http://www.loti.com/fifties_history/...Age_Indeed.htm

Did you read your link? Not a mention of religious belief anywhere.

We were after all, the technological leaders of the entire planet. No
one produced more cars, airplanes, locomotives, medicines, bombs, or
bridges than America during the 1950s. And we were also the cultural
leaders of the time. This was where Jackson Pollock stunned the art world
with his audacious breakthroughs in modern painting, while Elvis Presley
and Chuck Berry employed a daring new musical form called rock & roll
to induce hysterical, frenzied excitement among the masses. These
exemplary pursuits were framed by political and military initiatives that
strived with remarkable efficiency to raise the rest of the world to
almost our level and bolster them against the oppressive forces that still
remained in power in Europe.

Ours was a nation of seemingly all things good and admirable. We were
confident, powerful, smart, and ambitious. Why shouldn't we forever hold
the era up as an ideal to aspire to, a halcyon period in which we
finally "got it right," the kind of America we should compare all other
later iterations of our culture to?

But no matter how hard we try, we could probably never duplicate the rare
convergence of circumstances that produced the magic of the era anyway.
Much of the reason there was so much abundance in the 1950s, is that
the excess production of our war-inflated industrial base was by that
time chasing such a small number of consumers. Population growth in
America had been flat for a number of years. Families during the Great
Depression simply couldn't afford large families. Then, America entered
World War II, which severely limited the opportunities to start families.

And then there's the matter of America's unflagging optimism in the
1950s. Unlike almost any era except the 1980s, America in the 1950s was
desperate to be optimistic again. By 1946 we had lived under the blanket
of a general glumness for nearly two decades, first with the
Depression, then WWII. When those obstacles were finally removed, Americans
couldn't help but be consumed by an almost unstoppable longing to lead "The
Good Life."

At the same time, how could the United States not be the technological
leader of the world? There was, in fact, little of "The World" left
standing after it had been bombed into rubble the previous decade. America
found it easy pickings to dominate the world industrial scene - ours
was among the only significant industrial infrastructure left in any
large capacity.

And these are just a few simple examples of the many ways in which the
joys of 1950s America could really be best characterized as a being a
fluke -- an anomaly.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't point out these things to make less of
the 1950s. It will forever be my favorite of all eras in American
history. It was the climactic moment when our nation was poised at the
summit, astride the world with a benevolent smile and a youthful energy
that still holds an obvious, immediate magic when studied decades later.

There were so many factors that went into making the '50s a period of optimism, increased production and social stability, but I don't believe religious belief factored in much if at all. After all, we've always been a nation that allowed unfettered religious belief. I don't see where belief increased or improved in quality after the '30s. There are countries in the world where religious belief is largely non-existent, and some of those countries are doing rather well for their citizens. At the same time deeply religious countries like Greece and Spain are having problems. Those problems are economic in nature, not religious.

[finder]

Did you read your link? Not a mention of religious belief anywhere.

Ignored the first link that refuted your claim, eh?

Do you deny we as a nation adhered to a more strict religious sense in the fifties? Albeit it varied with denominations people generally moved toward religion as a whole.

For America's religions, particularly the famous "three faiths" -- Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism -- the 1950s were a time of building and growth, of theologians and preachers who were household names,

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~ellwood/tfsm.html

[Jack]

Ignored the first link that refuted your claim, eh?

I actually ignored it because it is based on the often repeated but false dichotomy that the only choices when it comes to government regulation of industry, and specifically financial institutions, is excessive regulation or no regulation at all (the unrealistic notion of self-regulation). That's a disingenuous argument.

Do you deny we as a nation adhered to a more strict religious sense in the fifties? Albeit it varied with denominations people generally moved toward religion as a whole.

I don't agree with your interpretation. People didn't "move toward" religion then anymore than they do today. Religious belief is largely traditional. People are born into a faith and usually continue to believe what their family has believed for generations. Have any studies been done that indicate an increase in the rate of conversions to Christianity in the '50s? I contend that it's because the times were good that religious belief wasn't questioned or challenged much during that period. Prosperity breeds complacency. "Don't rock the boat."

When the issues facing a society become more complex and religious belief fails to offer any acceptable comfort, people begin to question their once-accepted-without-question beliefs.

[finder]

I actually ignored it because it is based on the often repeated but false dichotomy that the only choices when it comes to government regulation of industry, and specifically financial institutions, is excessive regulation or no regulation at all (the unrealistic notion of self-regulation). That's a disingenuous argument.

I didn't come away thinking that was the article's message. No one (that I know of) asserts "no" regulation is needed for one. The only issue is what is excessive, and not just concerning commerce, our private lives as well. Do we really need government telling us what light bulbs we are allowed to use? Isn't our government supposed to be that "unrealistic notion of self-regulation?" To bring it back home now, the more secularist we are, the more regulatory we become, the worse our decent. You still haven't refuted that correlation.

I don't agree with your interpretation. People didn't "move toward" religion then anymore than they do today. Religious belief is largely traditional. People are born into a faith and usually continue to believe what their family has believed for generations. Have any studies been done that indicate an increase in the rate of conversions to Christianity in the '50s? I contend that it's because the times were good that religious belief wasn't questioned or challenged much during that period. Prosperity breeds complacency. "Don't rock the boat."

Odd, I have had many atheists make the exact opposite arguments. Many times I'm told the less intelligent, more impoverished are more likely to believe in God because they have nothing. I don't know of any study like you mentioned but it would be interesting to see statistics on conversion rates between then and now, I agree. But is it your contention that the number of atheists aren't rising in the more educated, technologically modern times?

When the issues facing a society become more complex and religious belief fails to offer any acceptable comfort, people begin to question their once-accepted-without-question beliefs.

No, it's not! Your contention is the opposite. So the correlation holds. People are less convicted of their beliefs today then in the fifties. And why couldn't it just be that kids are being raised with conflicting ideologies now days that breeds cynicism and unbelief, atheism? The simplest answer seems to be people aren't moving towards religious ideals as they did in the fifties because they are moving away from them in correlation with the rise of secular ideals prominently being displayed. And the on going demise of America continues per the correlation of the facts.

[Jack]

People are less convicted of their beliefs today then in the fifties.

Perhaps more people are better educated these days and less gullible.

And why couldn't it just be that kids are being raised with conflicting ideologies now days that breeds cynicism and unbelief, atheism?

Religion often is its own worst enemy. When religion tells young people that gays and atheists are evil and out to convert them, and young people realize this isn't true because they haven't been as deeply indoctrinated as their parents, of course religion is going to lose credibility in their eyes. That's true of anyone who is willing to weigh their experiences against what religion teaches.

The simplest answer seems to be people aren't moving towards religious ideals as they did in the fifties because they are moving away from them in correlation with the rise of secular ideals prominently being displayed. And the on going demise of America continues per the correlation of the facts.

Have you completely missed the resurgence of evangelical Protestantism in American politics among adults in the last few years? How does that jibe with your claim?

[finder]

Perhaps more people are better educated these days and less gullible.

Or they are confused by what modern "education" is based on and the conclusions it leads people are to believe. You still refute nothing.

Religion often is its own worst enemy. When religion tells young people that gays and atheists are evil and out to convert them

When has religion claimed that? From my limited exposure and involvement with religion they seem to tell people evil causes people to be lost or held a slave to their desires. Not that they are evil.

Have you completely missed the resurgence of evangelical Protestantism in American politics among adults in the last few years? How does that jibe with your claim?

Have you ever heard of the phrase "too little, too late?" Minor changes rarely if ever set back an overriding movement unless they can be allowed to consistently accumulate over a long, sustained period of time.

[truthreality]

Or they are confused by what modern "education" is based on and the conclusions it leads people are to believe. You still refute nothing.

I think what Jack is saying, he can correct me if I am wrong, is that we have more knowledge about the way the world works and it's history now so when people try to push the Bible agenda, we can understand what is false. We can make better judgements about the Bible thanks to modern education.

When has religion claimed that? From my limited exposure and involvement with religion they seem to tell people evil causes people to be lost or held a slave to their desires. Not that they are evil.

I have interacted with many Christians who say atheists and gays are ungodly and who say that the nature of all humans is sin and evil since the fall of Adam and Eve.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "too little, too late?" Minor changes rarely if ever set back an overriding movement unless they can be allowed to consistently accumulate over a long, sustained period of time.

Are you correlating Christianity with the prosperity of a nation?

[finder]

I think what Jack is saying, he can correct me if I am wrong, is that we have more knowledge about the way the world works and it's history now so when people try to push the Bible agenda, we can understand what is false. We can make better judgements about the Bible thanks to modern education.

That's what I thought he meant. So what do we have today that makes your assertion true?

I have interacted with many Christians who say atheists and gays are ungodly and who say that the nature of all humans is sin and evil since the fall of Adam and Eve.

I guess we need clarification as to how we define evil then. To me a person who embraces evil acts evil, they don't become the entity itself.

Are you correlating Christianity with the prosperity of a nation?

I purposed there was a correlation between the rise of secularism and the degradation of society from the fifties until now. Jack has offered other explanations but can't refute the correlation exist.

[truthreality]

I purposed there was a correlation between the rise of secularism and the degradation of society from the fifties until now. Jack has offered other explanations but can't refute the correlation exist.

What about the 90s during the reign of Clinton? The 90s were time of economic prosperity. Surely you can't credit Christianity for this prosperity.

[finder]

What about the 90s during the reign of Clinton? The 90s were time of economic prosperity. Surely you can't credit Christianity for this prosperity.

That wasn't near the same magnitude and the "prosperity" was a deceptive one on some fronts. The overall downward trend wasn't halted in the 90's. Clinton's "balanced budget" was hugely dependent on anticipated revenues which did not come to pass after the Silicon Valley bubble crash. And government forced banks and lenders like freddie mac to make unwise loans to people who were unqualified because minorities were viewed as unfairly discriminated against if they didn't have the credit rating to borrow. So naturally a lot of the majority who were just as unqualified jumped on the bandwagon and were extended loans they couldn't afford as well. So what transpired in the 90's actually contributed to our continued decent.

[truthreality]

That wasn't near the same magnitude and the "prosperity" was a deceptive one on some fronts. The overall downward trend wasn't halted in the 90's. Clinton's "balanced budget" was hugely dependent on anticipated revenues which did not come to pass after the Silicon Valley bubble crash. And government forced banks and lenders like freddie mac to make unwise loans to people who were unqualified because minorities were viewed as unfairly discriminated against if they didn't have the credit rating to borrow. So naturally a lot of the majority who were just as unqualified jumped on the bandwagon and were extended loans they couldn't afford as well. So what transpired in the 90's actually contributed to our continued decent.

No matter how prosperous an economy has been throughout history, there have been shortcomings. What do you mean by magnitude? What is your measure for magnitude?

[Dave In Canada]

Why is it that the States with the most church attendance are also considered to be the least desriable states to live in?

Church or synagogue attendance by state. Data is unavailable for Alaska and Hawaii.Church attendance varies considerably by state and region. In a 2010 Gallup survey, 41.6% of Americans said that they attended church or synagogue once a week or almost every week. The figures ranged from 63% in Mississippi to 23% in Vermont.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._United_States
Church Attendance by State[62] Rank State Percent
— National average 41.6%
1 Mississippi 63%
2 Alabama 58%
3 Louisiana 56%
3 South Carolina 56%
3 Utah 56%
6 Tennessee 54%
7 Arkansas 53%
7 North Carolina 53%
9 Georgia (U.S. state) 51%
10 Texas 50%

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif...states-to-live
Best States to Live (most recent) by state
# 38 Georgia: 21.77
Georgian Lifestyle

# 39 Alabama: 21
Alabamian Lifestyle

# 40 North Carolina: 20.61
Lifestyle

# 41 Kentucky: 20.48
Lifestyle

# 42 New Mexico: 20.43
Lifestyle

# 43 Oklahoma: 20.37
Oklahoman Lifestyle

# 44 South Carolina: 20.34
Lifestyle

# 45 Texas: 19.93
Texan Lifestyle

# 46 West Virginia: 19.64
West Virginian Lifestyle

# 47 Tennessee: 19.5
Tennessean Lifestyle

# 48 Arkansas: 19.25
Arkansan Lifestyle

# 49 Louisiana: 17.25
Louisianan Lifestyle

# 50 Mississippi: 16.11
Lifestyle

Weighted average: 25.5





DEFINITION: Livability Index by state. "To determine a state's 'Livability Rating,' each state's rankings for 44 factors were averaged. The scale is 1 to 50, the higher the number, the better. Data used are for the most recent year in which comparable numbers are available from most states. All factors were given equal weight. States with no data available for a given category were ranked based only on the remaining factors. In our book, data are listed from highest to lowest. However, for purposes of this award, we inverted rankings for those factors we determined to be 'positive.' Thus the state with the highest median income in the book (ranking 1st) would be given a number 50 ranking for this award." - Morgan Quitno Press

I also wouldn't be surpised to see that the Countries with the highest standards of living are also probably nations that are also considered to be largely secular.