Atheism on the Decline Worldwide

[Webruary]

Analysis: Atheism worldwide in decline

By Uwe Siemon-Netto

UPI Religious Affairs Editor

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050301-123015-2069r.htm

Gurat, France, Mar. 1 (UPI) -- There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe that godlessness is in trouble. "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday.

His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," he wrote in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today.

Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.

Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance."

As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST

[markus3622]

The article provides one side of why some people think atheism should be waning worldwide, but unfortunately does little to supply statistics.

The two lines of argument are interesting, but produce dead ends.

(i) Intelligent design is overturning evolution - of course we know this is not the case. Bob Arctor's posts have pretty much cleared this one up for all on this board (except Doctor Doom of course)

(ii) There are bad atheists as well as good atheists, and so isn't a panacea against immorality. - Fortunately, atheism doesn't pretend that it's the solution to all global problems, just makes a statement about the existence of god/gods.

[OurDubya]

What I found peculiar in the writing of this article are phrases such as "godlessness is in trouble". How can godlessness, or godfulness (to coin a word), ever be in trouble? A person can always believe what they believe, regardless of what others believe.

Another one: "atheism as theoretical position". Who holds atheism as a theoretical position? Not even atheists hold atheism as a theoretical position! Well, most don't, anyway.

Another one: atheism "appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings". Since when did suppositions about the supernatural (e.g., there is no god, there is a god, there could be gods but I don't know, etc.) ever have "scientific underpinnings"? What utter nonsense. It squarely contradicts the scientific method which, by definition, cannot say anything about the supernatural.

This Turkish philospher is also off his rocker, claiming that atheism is the way of science. To be clear - if by atheism he means that science does not refute nor affirm the existence of gods, then that's a true statement. But if he is saying that science somehow asserts that there are no gods at all, then he's all wet (by definition of the scientific method).

And what of bringing evolution into it? What in the world does evolution have to do with atheism? The vast number of theistic evolutionists there are attest to the fallacy here. Evolution, like any other field of science, says absolutely nothing one way or the otherr about the existence of gods.

Overall, a bizarre article indeed.

[whipple]

Seems like a pretty limp excuse for an article. Oh look, two theologist and some philosophers say Atheism is on the decline, must be true.

[Bob_Arctor]

Gurat, France, Mar. 1 (UPI) -- There seems to be a growing consensus around the globe that godlessness is in trouble. "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg told United Press International Tuesday.
Is it? Where are the statistics?
Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.
Right, the fall of atheism depends on the assault of ID pseudoscience (which, oddly enough in an article referring the the world as a whole is virtually unknown outside America) and the actions of some atheist regimes.
Writes Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya, "Atheism, which people have tried to for hundreds of years as 'the ways of reason and science,' is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance."
If this is the same guy I'm thinking of, he's a well-known Islamic creationist rather than some objective philosopher. He's something of an Islamic version of Hovind.

http://www.harunyahya.com/

As British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, mused when turning his back on his former belief: It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.
Flew apparently has been convinced by ID arguments (though keep in mind he's a philosopher), but certainly hasn't become "religious" in the normal sense of the word - more of an Einstein-style vague deism, a belief in some organizing force.

Webruary also didn't mention that the rest of the article goes on to emphasize that people are abandoning atheism (if indeed they are) not for standard religions, but for vague spiritural beliefs that are enjoyed in private. Does the possible rising popularity of private New-Age style beliefs bode well for traditional religion?

At any rate, a very odd article - devoid of factual evidence, dependent on the opinion of some very biased people, and reliant on scientific distortion. Then again, we all know who owns the Washington Times...

Bob Arctor

[Wyatt_Junker]

Atheist: Oh no, our team is losing!

Chrisitan: You're going down. Repent.

Hindu: There is no up nor down, only GPS.

Muslim(handing crowbar to paid heel): Smash her above the kneecap.

Wiccan: Let's play ring around the rosy. Anybody game?

Monkey: eeek eeek eeeeeeeeek hooo hooo haa haaaaa.

Atheist: Wait, I think I heard my god speaking.

Christian: I thought I said, 'repent', monkey boy.

Atheist: Why should I repent? I never change my mind about anything unless I delicately sift my urine through a strainer.

Hindu: I drink my urine.

Muslim: I will kill you all.

Wiccan: Can't we all just get along and play like fairies?

Monkey(throwing shitclod at Wiccan, then beating chest): Aaah aaah aaaaah. Oooh. Ohhhh. Ooooh.

Atheist: Hey, stop, that's my nephew you're tossing around there!

[MrSanity]

Two thumbs up to the article.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

[QUOTE=markus3622](i) Intelligent design is overturning evolution - of course we know this is not the case. Bob Arctor's posts have pretty much cleared this one up for all on this board (except Doctor Doom of course).

Sorry markus, but I take issue with this statement. I, for one, have NOT been persuaded by Bob Arctor's posts in regards to evolution over Creationism. You may categorize me in the group with DoctorDoom, please. I do believe you are mistaking lack of response for agreement. I'm quite certain, if polled, there are more here that believe in Creationism vs. evolution (as opposed to each other, not Creationist evolutionary theory) than just us two (Doc and I).

[markus3622]

[QUOTE=markus3622](i) Intelligent design is overturning evolution - of course we know this is not the case. Bob Arctor's posts have pretty much cleared this one up for all on this board (except Doctor Doom of course).

Sorry markus, but I take issue with this statement. I, for one, have NOT been persuaded by Bob Arctor's posts in regards to evolution over Creationism. You may categorize me in the group with DoctorDoom, please. I do believe you are mistaking lack of response for agreement. I'm quite certain, if polled, there are more here that believe in Creationism vs. evolution (as opposed to each other, not Creationist evolutionary theory) than just us two (Doc and I).

Homeschoolers, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Of course most people on this board (including you) will not have been persuaded to change their religion beliefs because of Bob's well-informed defense of science, but what Bob has managed to show is that science isn't being overturned by religion beliefs(as far as scientists are concerned - how could it?)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Homeschoolers, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

You did not make yourself clear. Re-read what you said:

(i) Intelligent design is overturning evolution - of course we know this is not the case. Bob Arctor's posts have pretty much cleared this one up for all on this board (except Doctor Doom of course).

Of course most people on this board (including you) will not have been persuaded to change their religion beliefs because of Bob's well-informed defense of science,

Then why did you say his posts "have pretty much cleared this one up for all on this board (except DoctorDoom of course)"? I would suggest you say what you mean to avoid misunderstanding in the future.

but what Bob has managed to show is that science isn't being overturned by religion beliefs(as far as scientists are concerned - how could it?)

I disagree, but you are entitled to believe what you choose. My only problem with your post was the assertion that he had "cleared it up" for all of us on the board, when clearly that is not the case. I do believe we understand each other now.

[markus3622]

I wrote that "Intelligent design is overturning evolution - of course we know this is not the case. Bob Arctor's posts have pretty much cleared this one up for all on this board (except Doctor Doom of course)."

Perhaps I should have written that Bob Arctor had pretty much cleared it up, for all on this board that ID hadn't had an effect on the science of evolution, which is different from clearing it up for all on this board that science held all the truths in the universe.

Not that any of this has any effect on the original OP, the case for atheism