In an interesting, and not surprising Pew Research Study, more, about 25%, younger people (18-29) consider themselves religious, but unaffiliated to any particular branch. The 25% is the highest ever, and shows that younger generations either do not follow or have their own views of religion, not based on their parents. The younger generation still prays, believes in God, miracles, heaven and hell, but just not all the doctrine or established practices that go along with it.


This is basically my point of view, as I still believe in God, Jesus, miracles,heaven and hell and I still pray. Yet, I do not consider myself a "Christian" in the traditional definition in that I do not go to church, do not fully believe in the Trinity and leave open the possibility that other religions have grans of truth to them.

Pretty interesting study though.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=510

About what i would have expected.

It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.

Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/

Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

it's weird what education will do for some people

From my own personal experience, this is absolutely correct and probably has been this way since the 1960's. A lot of people loose faith and experiment and break with their religious mores during this time period. What I have observed over the years is that people begin to go back to church and re-gain faith after more life experience, loss of one or more of their parents and childhood friends and they get married and have children. Many people in their 30's and 40's use the church for social activity or to introuduce their own children into the church.

In before the "and this is why our country is going to hell" posts.

I was that way when I was younger, too. And I've maintained some of it even now.

But I came back to my core religious training from my youth (Episcopal) as I got older. I don't attend services as frequently as I'd like, but when I do go I enjoy the ritual and pageantry of the services. I should add that I was raised in what was then called a "high" Episcopal church.

bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.

Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/

Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

Pew research also pegs the # of scientists believing in a god at 33%...a number that has held constant over the past century. Science by its very nature deals only with things that can be empirically verifiable by our own limited senses. What is so un-encouraging is that so many are incapable of transcending that limitation.

Apparently too many people have read been swayed by Dawkins who is not able to think outside of his box.
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j11/goswami.asp?page=2

Not surprising.

#2 on the list of "Stuff White People Like" is "religions that their parents don't belong to".

While I can understand the negative feelings behind the phrase of convenience known as "organized religion", be cautious when tempted to denigrate those who have a heartfelt belief in the things of God. There's a distinct difference between religion and faith. The former concentrates on the failings of humanistic pomp and circumstance and the latter is a deeply personal relationship between a person and God.

That being said, this "news" of the younger generation considering themselves as being religiously unaffiliated is not surprising. These things go in cycles.

As some posters alluded to above it's not unusual for young people to avoid, disregard, or put off the things of God while they "find themselves." But as life ticks on and we finally realize our mortality and short life spans, every one of us at leasts ponders the possibility of the afterlife. We all eventually ask the question: Is this all there is?

When that time comes some of us continue to buy-off on all that liberal "education will do for us" as preached by the Darwinists in secular cathedrals known as universities. They cling to the belief that we are chance spontaneous creation emanating from the primordial ooze and have evolved into our current condition. We live for about 80 years and die. Nothing more.

Others struggle all their lives with the spiritual and intellectual struggle raging within. Indoctrinated through years of Darwinist teachings that God is a fairy tale created by dimwits in a fruitless effort to face the uncertainty of death, they look at the vastness of the universe and the complexities of the world around them and secretly hope that there's more to life than living and dying. Many go to their graves still asking the original question.

For others, God is real. He exists and created all that exists. And in that they long with their hearts to know Him and believe that He has far more in store for them than this world can ever offer.

So don't read too much into the younger generation's current disinterest in "religiosity." What goes around comes around...It always does.

One thing i've noticed in my area is a number of "hipster" churches which try to revamp the christian message into something more palatable for todays youth. The general idea seems to be " If we make this seem fun and break down the message into tiny bits eventually it will get through".

Truth be told i'm not sure I could have faith even if i wanted too but i've come to the conclusion that the most logical explanation at this point is that theere was a prime mover but beyond that I commit to nothing.

Not surprised about this study's results. I was born and raised catholic, went to a catholic school, went to church, etc....never really questioned it, just kind of accepted it as part of life. Over the past few years I've still maintained many of my beliefs but I'm not really into the whole "organized religion" thing. I believe that God is everywhere and everyone should have their own personal relationship with him. I also believe that God created everything, however I do not believe he is actively involved with everyone's life. I'm not a believer in "fate" or "God's plan", just that things happen both for good and bad and we can either move past them or be consumed by them. I also think people focus too much on the specific details of the Bible and not the message it sends. With that said I respect other peoples' beliefs for it is their right to believe whatever they want to. With so many religions out there though, it's hard to believe only one of them is actually right when they all claim to be. I simply go about my life trying to be as good of a person as I can and try to help someone in some way every day. If I can continue to do that the rest of my life I will be happy. If there is a heaven, and if God doesn't think that is enough to get in, then it's probably not a heaven I want to live in anyways.

bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.

Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/

Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

Richard Dawkins? Please. This guy is a joke. I will admit I use to be an Atheist and if you are going to take that stance there are many better opponents of religion out there than this clown. He has folded many times when debated by someone with intelligence.

As for your last statement. What scientific evidence is out there that God does not exist?

I am not attacking, I believe you can believe whatever you want but that statement almost sounds like you are stating fact that science has ruled out existence of a God.

pmoney25 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.

Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/

Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

Richard Dawkins? Please. This guy is a joke. I will admit I use to be an Atheist and if you are going to take that stance there are many better opponents of religion out there than this clown. He has folded many times when debated by someone with intelligence.

As for your last statement. What scientific evidence is out there that God does not exist?

I am not attacking, I believe you can believe whatever you want but that statement almost sounds like you are stating fact that science has ruled out existence of a God.

All I have to say in response to you is you need to pick up a Dawkins book before you talk about him. This man is an Oxford educated biologist, who has wrote many critically-acclaimed books in the field of gentics, biology, and religion. He is of the utmost intelligence and you would find very few people who disagree with that. A lot of the so called "foldings" you mention are actual intentional mis-quotations by the source.

As for some scientific facts, we can start with evolution by natural selection which is considered fact in the scientific community (with very specific scientific details I don't care to get into right now, read a book about it). Then there's also chemistry and geology, which can tell us the Earth is much, much older than the 11,000 years the Bible tells us it is. There's a whole list of others.

You can never with 100% certainty say that there is no supreme being of some measure, but I can say with 100% certainty that if there is one, he doesn't manifest himself in this universe. Believing that he does is like believing a magic trick is really magic. Just because you don't understand the reason behind something doesn't mean there isn't still a logical, scientific reason.

HitsRus wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.

Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/

Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

Pew research also pegs the # of scientists believing in a god at 33%...a number that has held constant over the past century. Science by its very nature deals only with things that can be empirically verifiable by our own limited senses. What is so un-encouraging is that so many are incapable of transcending that limitation.

Apparently too many people have read been swayed by Dawkins who is not able to think outside of his box.
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j11/goswami.asp?page=2

Using the unknown to explain religion, haven't seen that before. :rolleyes:

bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.

Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/

Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

Einstein was strongly theistic. Scientists that can "explain it all" don't have a clue.

Footwedge wrote:Einstein was strongly theistic. Scientists that can "explain it all" don't have a clue.

^^^This.

Science can be viewed as a religion in and of itself. Those who arrogantly, blindly, and smugly cling solely to humanist science as explanation of our existence can be as dangerous (IE: the development and use of atomic weapons) as anyone who - for example - cling to the literal teachings of the Quran as an excuse to hijack airliners full of innocent people and fly them into skyscrapers in the name of Allah.

bigmanbt wrote: Just because you don't understand the reason behind something doesn't mean there isn't still a logical, scientific reason.

However, neither does it mean that there is one.

bigmanbt wrote:

HitsRus wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.

Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/

Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

Pew research also pegs the # of scientists believing in a god at 33%...a number that has held constant over the past century. Science by its very nature deals only with things that can be empirically verifiable by our own limited senses. What is so un-encouraging is that so many are incapable of transcending that limitation.

Apparently too many people have read been swayed by Dawkins who is not able to think outside of his box.
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j11/goswami.asp?page=2

Using the unknown to explain religion, haven't seen that before. :rolleyes:

Is that what you think? You are locked within your little box as much as the fundamental christians who you 'defeat' with your science. While theirs is a literal interpretation of the Bible box, yours is a box of verifiablity by a finite mind. Since you can't measure the spititual and metaphysical it doesn't exist within your box, and hence you dismiss it.

Organized religion is simply a way to find 'God' by limited mind and consciousness within a universe/multiverse of infinite but precise complexity. Even if science can succeed in disproving certain aspects of organized religion, it is a logical falsehood that this defeats the intuitive concept of a creator.

Please don't limit yourself to Dawkins.
http://www.templeton.org/belief/

HitsRus wrote:Is that what you think? You are locked within your little box as much as the fundamental christians who you 'defeat' with your science. While theirs is a literal interpretation of the Bible box, yours is a box of verifiablity by a finite mind. Since you can't measure the spititual and metaphysical it doesn't exist within your box, and hence you dismiss it.

Organized religion is simply a way to find 'God' by limited mind and consciousness within a universe/multiverse of infinite but precise complexity. Even if science can succeed in disproving certain aspects of organized religion, it is a logical falsehood that this defeats the intuitive concept of a creator.

Please don't limit yourself to Dawkins.http://www.templeton.org/belief/

Well said.

There are Christians including myself who wholeheartedly believe in Biblical principles while reserving judgment on its literal nature.

Conversely I'm not opposed to believing that an awesome God far beyond our puny understanding created us with just enough brain power to be scientifically dangerous, ego-centric, and self-delusional.

We fancy ourselves as being almost "God-like" based on our cause and effect science while those very efforts ironically are the basis for proof or disproof of God's existence.

I for one prefer to belief that God and secular science can peacefully co-exist.

Footwedge wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: It's really too bad. Combine that with this study.... http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html ... and it paints a good picture for you. 80% of common people believe in a god of some sort, yet only 7% of the eminent scientists enducted into The National Academy of Sciences believes in a god. Such a big disconnect between the 2, it's so un-encouraging.

Not enough people have read Richard Dawkins still I see. :-/

Edit: Well it's encouraging more people are pulling away from organized religion, just wish it would happen quicker with the abundance of scientific evidence out there.

Einstein was strongly theistic. Scientists that can "explain it all" don't have a clue.

Einstein has been quoted for both sides of the argument, so at best he's a wash. I tend to believe he saw "god" as nature, not a supreme being. If you read my other post, you can never with 100% certainty say there isn't a god, but that doesn't mean the odds are 50/50, science has proven that at least the Christian god is more unlikely than likely.

It would be ignorant of me to say with 100% certainty that there is no god. That can almost never be "proven" philosophically. I'm not "locked into a box", I just refuse to believe in magic. I read the article about the experiment and the so-called scientific proof of god. That experiment proves there are other dimensions, but does nothing to "prove" god exists in those other dimensions. It's just exploiting the unknown and using it to explain god, when really you are limiting yoursef by saying god does something. If science behaved that way and accepted god as the answer, we would never advance in society. Scientists like to explore the unknown, not re-explore stuff they know and accepting god as the answer doesn't allow for exploration of the unknown.

I don't have a problem with religious people, but I figured of all places to discuss it would be a thread that talks about it. If it's not brought up, I won't bring it up. When it is though, I refuse to be silenced like other athiests, which is the most discriminated against group in all of America.

bigmanbt wrote:
If you read my other post, you can never with 100% certainty say there isn't a god, but that doesn't mean the odds are 50/50, science has proven that at least the Christian god is more unlikely than likely.

What has science proven? Can't prove the big bang, can't prove evolution, etc. I never got the argument that believing in God is so out there, but believing that dust, exploded, and formed a cell, which transformed into millions of species of animals through evolution is so scientifically logical.

^^^^( to believer)There are many working scientists, including physicists and cosmologists who do their jobs/research during the week and then go to church on Sunday. There is no reason that science and religion should be opposed or enemies, as there is no way to prove or disprove infinite concepts using finite means. The friction between the two arise because of misconceptions/misrepresentations in both camps...that 'God' is an entity....and an entity has borders. You cannot assign borders to infinite 'things' and not expect it to breakdown under finite explanations or attempts at proof. Even quantuum mechanics as a way to explain the physics of the universe breaks down if you push it hard enough. In the true scheme of things, even the notion of a 'creator' or 'design' assigns borders and entity status....but we cannot fully comprehend something without it.

While we can't prove it empirically, we can however concieve an 'entity' without borders', in much the same way as we can see 3 dimensions on a 2-D flat screen TV....that is, intuitively.

bigmanbt wrote:
"I don't have a problem with religious people, but I figured of all places to discuss it would be a thread that talks about it. If it's not brought up, I won't bring it up. When it is though, I refuse to be silenced like other athiests, which is the most discriminated against group in all of America."

Well, here is the crux of the matter. Atheists who are annoyed by religious trying to convert them...and religious who feel threatened by those who deny what they believe so strongly in.....
Can't we all just get along?


as per the actual topic of the younger generation being 'unaffiliated'....it should be noted that it pertains to unaffiliation with traditional churches...but not necessarily less spiritual.

iclfan2 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:
If you read my other post, you can never with 100% certainty say there isn't a god, but that doesn't mean the odds are 50/50, science has proven that at least the Christian god is more unlikely than likely.

What has science proven? Can't prove the big bang, can't prove evolution, etc. I never got the argument that believing in God is so out there, but believing that dust, exploded, and formed a cell, which transformed into millions of species of animals through evolution is so scientifically logical.

From the bolded, I can tell the level of intelligence of the person with whom I am speaking. Evolution by natural selection is most certainly a fact.