Stuff I figured out years ago.

[Betruger]

Let us just say for the sake of argument, that I am a hypocritical ass and move on to the next point.

It's not an argument.

Abuse of what?
in absence of a belief in spirituality

Both wrong:
1) Abuse not of that or another arbitrary moral system, but most fundamental thing: causal understanding applied to material reality. E.g. knife in flesh. As someone else argued here a while back - non aggression as basis for civilization (IIRC he/she was arguing it towards/in defense of anarchism or libertarianism). By definition it is ab-use to human sense. No meaning to be read between the lines there, no extrapolation or anything but face value. Without that non-aggression pact of sorts, you're subsequently always compromising against society's self-destruction.
Further down the line you do get what I'm really arguing instead of this religious tangent: neither atheism nor theism is wrong in itself, as argued (the atheist side) by GIThruster: nazis are assholes just like whatever religious nutbags. Al Qaida. Whatever. Yes there's something fundamental askew with the Koran. But that's not what I'm arguing.


2) Secular life is not mutually exclusive to spirituality.
The subtlety that people miss and yet that is more natural than getting caught up in the cogs of the organized religion machine is to keep their spirituality - "religious" (for sake of brevity) or not - to themselves. Because it is irrational. And there's no defending the irrational. E.G. standing in middle of highway staring at the sky because you're having a divine revelation. More innocuous instances are still irrational - by same measure as Ayn Rand's evil is always evil, large or small. All the good of religion can be exploited in no lesser amounts (arguably more) if it is kept completely private. Imagine crusading over another subjective thing that's literally immaterial to tangible reality: music. It's absurd.
For instance, me; an average guy: I have some religious-like/spiritual ideas I pretty much take for sacred. Sacred till I find better ones. And I keep them to myself - It would be irresponsible to even acknowledge having them, iow: Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat. It's not hypocrisy, it's knowing there's no defending them. I do nothing I might have to explain, to justify, without an actual rational basis IOW I don't do anything motivated only by those effectively mystical ideas. It would be irresponsible. To others and to myself. Analogous to betting the farm on lottery. My farm or their farm. Or e.g. Nixon (or whoever's it was, I don't recall) basing some presidential choices on his wife's astrological readings.

The use of religion is as a personal lesson, not as a means of crowd control. It doesn't matter whether Jesus Christ was real. The lesson in the book, in the story is what matters. Taken for granted (taken literally) it is cargo cult science. It ultimately misleads Man in his voyage to the stars, IOW across nature and its "physical" laws. The bible plays no part in technology.

etc

[Teahive]

Why are there so many atheists and part-time believers?

You can check the stats with Barna if you like, but I don't think Atheism has wavered much in it's popularity. It generally runs about 10% and is as popular as drug addition, homosexuality and several other forms of social deviance. The difference is modern atheists have been pushing the boundaries now for the last few decades, just as drug addicts and homosexuals have, testing the bounds and seeking to popularize themselves and make themselves mainstream. Tolerance for diversity is holding the vast bulk of culture back and allowing these deviant forces to grow. If they can grow without perverting society, then they'll be accepted. If not, they'll be persecuted and pushed back into the closet. Only time will tell but it appears they'll be pushed back into the closet, since they are all still making the mistakes like the gay rights movement back in the 70's and being deliberately offensive to those who are normal.

Actually, I came across a study recently that put atheists at substantially below 10% in the US, but growing. Whereas they count well above 10% in some European countries (including UK, France, and Germany), and growing there, too.

But that's not the whole truth, which is why I didn't just refer to those who self-identify as atheists. The role of religion even in religious people's lives appears to be shrinking.

As far as offending the majority goes, I don't think atheists and uncommitted non-believers actually rank particularly highly in that regard. There's some outrage, but compared to some other conflicts it hardly registers.

[Teahive]

I do believe that you can have a solid moral foundation without a Big Daddy punisher in the sky, but I don't think that's something worth discussing in this forum again.

I cannot grasp such a concept. If you leave out spirituality of some sort, then the whole universe is just a bunch of nuts and bolts. Morality for nuts and bolts makes no sense at all. It's like saying the "morality of chemistry." It's nonsensical.

The irony of this coming from you...

But it's still not worth discussing here. Though I do want to clarify that my argument isn't "society has no need for religion".

[MSimon]

You know who has need of religion? The people who authorized police looting with asset forfeiture. The trouble is those are the same people calling for more religion.

Maybe what we need is less religion and more morality. I don't see the religion and morality being congruent. Despite claims to the contrary. Perhaps that is why belief is declining.

Religion used to be against theft. It now condones it in the name of a "moral" crusade. Or the crusaders differentiate between thieves and government. Ask the person who has his possessions stolen if it makes a difference. Other than the fact that government generally kills with immunity or should that be impunity. Well at least the grand juries almost always conclude "orders were followed". That is a comfort. Orders were followed. Where have I heard that before?

The "religious" are doing more to discredit religion than any gang of atheists could ever hope to accomplish.

[choff]

IMHO, the people most responsible for the decline in religious belief are the people running the religions, not atheists, I've spent my life watching religious leaders shoot themselves and their followers in the feet. It hasn't helped that tax arrangements have entangled religion with government, NGO's and the U.N, or that people like the Frankfurt School set out to target religion for subversion as a way to break down western culture and return serfdom. Atheism is just another belief system, and even THAT has been subject to subversive movements. I've seen sites where atheists complain about how SJW's and radical feminists have subverted the movement to the detriment of it's members.