Is this the call for a confused Atheist?

[josie_L]

now your just trying to amuse yourself with silly questions

Hey, you’re the one who said “real” atheists.

P.S. My cheeks are starting to hurt from all this massive grinning (refering to the smileys).

 

[Faith_at_Large]

OK I was lazy (didn’t feel like sourcing authority); but here’s something:

Non-denominational/ Evangelical Christian (62% MORE LIKLEY than general population to get divorced.)
Baptists (38% MORE LIKELY Than the general population to get divorced)
Protestants (19% MORE LIKELY Than the general population to get divorced)
Mormons(14% MORE LIKELY Than the general population to get divorced)
Catholics/ Lutherans (No difference between these groups and the general population)
Atheists/Agnostics(10% LESS LIKELY Than the general population to get divorced)

Hey, look at that Catholics and Lutherans have the same percentage of divorces. You guys are on our heels … but your still in SECOND PLACE!!!

Atheists (and our agnostic slightly more chicken hearted friends) divorce less than everyone else.

More from the article I cite:

*“These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of ‘submissive’ nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage.”

The Associated Press computed divorce statistics from data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health. The data showed the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. “Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce…the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average.”*

christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1235365349

Those who follow the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, especially her rules on contraception, have a divorce rate of less than 5%. This is true regardless of whether they are Catholic or not.

Catholics who use contraception have the same divorce rates as the general population, because they are part of the general population, they have rejected that which makes them Catholic - fidelity to the Catholic Church and her teachings.

 

[josie_L]

none of that is relevant to the question of whether god exists or whether Christianity is true is it (which is what the comment you responded to here focused on). Even if it’s true that a sense of community, belonging to a group, meditation or prayer, etc. can lead to less stress, it doesn’t make religion true (in fact it’s not even relevant to the question).

First of all remember, the Barna study merely contrasted people who attend church regularly verses those who don’t (they made no inquiries or at least distinctions regarding the percentage of the non-church goer group whom were avowed atheists … my guess it’s pretty small as is the percentage of Americans overall who claim to be atheists).

Therefore, it’s just as likely that the regular church goer group were more healthy than the general population because they live a better lifestyle. They probably have irresponsible sex less frequently than most, they probably don’t drink as much or use drugs, etc. However, the funny thing is real atheists generally live the same sort of lifestyle. So if Barna were to re-do his study & contrast church goers against actual atheists (not just people who don’t go to church) I bet the story would be inverted. I bet atheists actually live longer and are happier (at least if contrasted to highly intelligent people, who generally do have higher stress levels as compared to less intelligent people, given they generally have more responsibility).

Divorce Among Adults Who Have Been Married

(Base: 3792 adults)

Population Segment Have Been Divorced No. of Interviews

All adults 33% 3792

Evangelical Christians 26% 339
Non-evangelical born again Chrisitans 33% 1373
Notional Christians 33% 1488
Associated with non Christian faith 38% 197
**Atheist or agnostic 30% 269 **
All born again Christians 32% 1712
All non born again Christians 33% 2080

Protestant 34% 1997
Catholic 28% 875

Upscale 22% 450
Downscale 39% 367

White 32% 2641
African-American 36% 464
Hispanic 31% 458
Asian 20% 128

Conservative 28% 1343
Moderate 33% 1720
Liberal 37% 474

Thirty percent of atheists and agnostics had been married and subsequently divorced. However, the three-point difference from the national average was within the range of sampling error, suggesting that their likelihood of experiencing a dissolved marriage is the same as that of the population at-large. A representative from Barna also pointed out the atheists and agnostics have lower rates of marriage and a higher likelihood of cohabitation, a combination of behaviors that distort comparisons with other segments.

In addition to finding that four out of every five adults (78%) have been married at least once, the Barna study revealed that an even higher proportion of born again Christians (84%) tie the knot. That eclipses the proportion among people aligned with non-Christian faiths (74%) and among atheists and agnostics (65%).

barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

If your claim to being honest is true, then you cannot continue stating that atheists have the lowest rates of divorce.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Those who follow the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, especially her rules on contraception, have a divorce rate of less than 5%. This is true regardless of whether they are Catholic or not.

and I assume you also would include her other teachings, like the prohibition against divorce? Duh … sure if you count using your subjective formulation, you can arrive at any number you want. So you can say the RCC only permits divorce under very narrow circumstances (and it does in very limited cases). If someone divorces for an invalid reason, then they’re obviously not someone who follows the “actual teachings of the Catholic church” (and you boot them from your numbers for purpose of these sorts of statistics … but I’d be willing to bet you use them to arrive at a number like one billion Catholics).

I mean, whatever … so then if you’re to be intellectually honest (and since to be a Catholic you must conform to all her rules) then there’s perhaps only one or maybe two hundred million Catholics in the world (so then the Pentecostals become the single largest Christian denomination on earth … not the RCC or EOC) … but let me guess, you have this great philosophical spin job showing me why my logic is convoluted. Hey Pentecostals … good news (you guys win the whose version of ancient mythology is more right game).

Catholics who use contraception have the same divorce rates as the general population, because they are part of the general population, they have rejected that which makes them Catholic - fidelity to the Catholic Church and her teachings.

more of the same … asked & answered!

 

[Faith_at_Large]

You probably haven’t met many atheists then (or at least ones who have a well developed understanding of why they believe as they do).

Actually, I have met a few. And I know of more. There was one fellow with a website rejecting Pascal’s Wager. He challenged the Jews on their math by posting an example that only demonstrated that he knew less about math and should not have raised the topic - I tried three times to explain that the globe he had drawn on his site to represent the wash basin where the priest’s washed up in the Temple, was actually bowl shaped with a lip, and that the dimensions given in the Bible demonstrated this fact - but this fellow did not want to be confused with facts.

Dr. Bernard Nathonson was a Jew by heritage, but was an atheist at heart. He was also the abortion king and co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League. He converted to Christianity after learning more about “life”.

My boss is also an atheist, but I suspect by default. Many just stop believing.

But my cousin and the first gentleman above, are rabid anti-God fanatics. And I have met many more like this. They are not true atheists. A true atheist would not be so concerned about what others believe unless it affected him or her directly. Yet that are a large number of atheists that prove time and again that they are mad at God and seek to get back at Him by getting others to stop believing in Him.

Many that I have met are angry because something that they believed was not right and that if God existed, He would not have allowed it. And if He did exist and allowed it, then there was something wrong.

How did you become an atheist?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Divorce Among Adults Who Have Been Married

(Base: 3792 adults)

Population Segment Have Been Divorced No. of Interviews

All adults 33% 3792

Evangelical Christians 26% 339
Non-evangelical born again Chrisitans 33% 1373
Notional Christians 33% 1488
Associated with non Christian faith 38% 197
**Atheist or agnostic 30% 269 **
All born again Christians 32% 1712
All non born again Christians 33% 2080

Protestant 34% 1997
Catholic 28% 875

Upscale 22% 450
Downscale 39% 367

White 32% 2641
African-American 36% 464
Hispanic 31% 458
Asian 20% 128

Conservative 28% 1343
Moderate 33% 1720
Liberal 37% 474

Thirty percent of atheists and agnostics had been married and subsequently divorced. However, the three-point difference from the national average was within the range of sampling error, suggesting that their likelihood of experiencing a dissolved marriage is the same as that of the population at-large. A representative from Barna also pointed out the atheists and agnostics have lower rates of marriage and a higher likelihood of cohabitation, a combination of behaviors that distort comparisons with other segments.

In addition to finding that four out of every five adults (78%) have been married at least once, the Barna study revealed that an even higher proportion of born again Christians (84%) tie the knot. That eclipses the proportion among people aligned with non-Christian faiths (74%) and among atheists and agnostics (65%).

barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

If your claim to being honest is true, then you cannot continue stating that atheists have the lowest rates of divorce.

the problem is with the Barna group is they provide significant services to the Christian community; and they are a quasi-Christian organization (moreover the numbers I cited earlier were from a 1999 Barna study, the ones you cite are from a study taken last March).

I think the variance over such a short time frame is peculiar (particularly since Barna has been expanding its base of Christian clientele). However, if it’s true a two or three percentage point variance (the margin of error I might add) really doesn’t help you much. In the 1999 study Catholics, Lutherans, and Atheists all had a 21% divorce rate (albeit the Atheist divorce rate was lower but by less than 1%).

See also: religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The above site is where I took my initial numbers from.

Of course I see no problem with divorce when necessary, but I also think the rise in atheist divorces might simply reflect the fact that there’s more atheists out there these days (and perhaps atheism isn’t just for really smart people anymore). Golly, and here I was really getting into being an oppressed minority

We’re growing … oh oh the world must be close to ending (everyone run out and buy a bunch of bottled water & canned food)

 

[josie_L]

the problem is with the Barna group is they provide significant services to the Christian community; and they are a quasi-Christian organization (moreover the numbers I cited earlier were from a 1999 Barna study, the ones you cite are from a study taken last March).

I think the variance over such a short time frame is peculiar (particularly since Barna has been expanding its base of Christian clientele). However, if it’s true a two or three percentage point variance (the margin of error I might add) really doesn’t help you much. In the 1999 study Catholics, Lutherans, and Atheists all had a 21% divorce rate (albeit the Atheist divorce rate was lower but by less than 1%).

See also: religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The above site is where I took my initial numbers from.

Of course I see no problem with divorce when necessary, but I also think the rise in atheist divorces might simply reflect the fact that there’s more atheists out there these days (and perhaps atheism isn’t just for really smart people anymore). Golly, and here I was really getting into being an oppressed minority

We’re growing … oh oh the world must be close to ending (everyone run out and buy a bunch of bottled water & canned food)

**Atheist or agnostic 30% 269 **
All born again Christians 32% 1712
All non born again Christians 33% 2080

Protestant 34% 1997
**Catholic 28% 875 **

The interesting thing I noted is that although the sample size for “atheist or agnostic” was a mere 269 they have a 30% divorce rate. While the Catholics are a sample group of 875 with a divorce rate of 28%.

P.S. Don’t forget the toilet paper!!! Ok, maybe I shouldn’t have said that.

 

[josie_L]

**Atheist or agnostic 30% 269 **
All born again Christians 32% 1712
All non born again Christians 33% 2080

Protestant 34% 1997
**Catholic 28% 875 **

The interesting thing I noted is that although the sample size for “atheist or agnostic” was a mere 269 they have a 30% divorce rate. While the Catholics are a sample group of 875 with a divorce rate of 28%.

P.S. Don’t forget the toilet paper!!! Ok, maybe I shouldn’t have said that.

Oh my goodness, I’m the only one on this forum.

 

[StAnastasia]

But my cousin and the first gentleman above, are rabid anti-God fanatics. And I have met many more like this. They are not true atheists. A true atheist would not be so concerned about what others believe unless it affected him or her directly. Yet that are a large number of atheists that prove time and again that they are mad at God and seek to get back at Him by getting others to stop believing in Him.

I’m not sure what you mean by “true atheist.” Someone who just doesn’t know or care about the question might be an agnostic. Richard Dawkins and his ilk are evangelical atheists – they are not content simply to be atheists themselves, but have to convert the world to atheism. The ones who “are mad at God and seek to get back at him” are by definition not atheists.

StAnastasia

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure what you mean by “true atheist.” Someone who just doesn’t know or care about the question might be an agnostic. Richard Dawkins and his ilk are evangelical atheists – they are not content simply to be atheists themselves, but have to convert the world to atheism. The ones who “are mad at God and seek to get back at him” are by definition not atheists.

StAnastasia

I think I understand what she/he means, and as someone has told me just of late: humans are inconsistent creatures.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think I understand what she/he means, and as someone has told me just of late: humans are inconsistent creatures.

Gee, you think so?

I’m sure numerous genetic Jews would disagree, but Elie Wiesel once said that “you can be a Jew for God, or a Jew against God, but you cannot be a Jew without God.”

StAnastasia

 

[josie_L]

Gee, you think so?

I’m sure numerous genetic Jews would disagree, but Elie Wiesel once said that “you can be a Jew for God, or a Jew against God, but you cannot be a Jew without God.”

StAnastasia

So if you think so, then it shouldn’t be too hard to understand what “faith at large” meant?

 

[StAnastasia]

So if you think so, then it shouldn’t be too hard to understand what “faith at large” meant?

I don’t understand. Can you please explain?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m not sure what you mean by “true atheist.” Someone who just doesn’t know or care about the question might be an agnostic. Richard Dawkins and his ilk are evangelical atheists – they are not content simply to be atheists themselves,

and what Christian group do you know of who isn’t evangelical? In fact you’re required to try and force your religion down everyone’s throat … so I for one am glad to see there’s people finally beginning to fight back against this nonsense; like Dawkins.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t understand. Can you please explain?

When she/he said “true” atheists she/he was refering to the fact that since Atheists do not have a belief system they should not be bothered by other people’s belief systems, as such people like Richard Dawkins and the other horsemen of the Apocalypse (Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Samuel Harris) are somewhat contradictive in their stance as Atheists because they are preoccupied with talking about and railing against a God that they state doesn’t exist. It’s just funny how singleminded they are about debunking Him, it shouldn’t matter one way or the other. But I guess the answer can be somewhat answered by the fact that these Atheists view religion as dangerous, and yet 65% of Christians (45 000 000 martyred for the faith out of 70 000 000) were killed in the twentieth century by atheistic regimes. Thus, the reason I stated human inconsistencies. It is very irrational what some Atheists (considering their position) spout or preoccupy their time with.

 

[StAnastasia]

and what Christian group do you know of who isn’t evangelical? In fact you’re required to try and force your religion down everyone’s throat … so I for one am glad to see there’s people finally beginning to fight back against this nonsense; like Dawkins.

Of course many Christians are like that, but not all. Catholics often try to witness by example, rather than by preaching or coercion. Of course, the Catholic record in the sixteenth-century Caribbean is appalling.

 

[Faith_at_Large]

and I assume you also would include her other teachings, like the prohibition against divorce? Duh … sure if you count using your subjective formulation, you can arrive at any number you want. So you can say the RCC only permits divorce under very narrow circumstances (and it does in very limited cases). If someone divorces for an invalid reason, then they’re obviously not someone who follows the “actual teachings of the Catholic church” (and you boot them from your numbers for purpose of these sorts of statistics … but I’d be willing to bet you use them to arrive at a number like one billion Catholics).

I mean, whatever … so then if you’re to be intellectually honest (and since to be a Catholic you must conform to all her rules) then there’s perhaps only one or maybe two hundred million Catholics in the world (so then the Pentecostals become the single largest Christian denomination on earth … not the RCC or EOC) … but let me guess, you have this great philosophical spin job showing me why my logic is convoluted. Hey Pentecostals … good news (you guys win the whose version of ancient mythology is more right game).

more of the same … asked & answered!

I also said that that the very low divorce rate also applied to non-Catholics who did not use contraception. The divorce rate climbed at a rate parallel to the availability of the Birth Control Pill.

Having used the Pill for medical reasons (which is permitted) and later sought other solutions that did not involve the Pill, I can see why there is such a difference.

I have also seen it in my friends who have been both on and off the Pill (non-Catholic so no religious reasons involved).

Even if one takes the prohibition against divorce completely out of the equation it makes no difference. The reason why contraception negatively affects marriage is social not religious.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I also said that that the very low divorce rate also applied to non-Catholics who did not use contraception. The divorce rate climbed at a rate parallel to the availability of the Birth Control Pill.

I’m not sure whether or not you’re right about that. The first case to rule contraceptive use is a fundamental right was Griswold v. Connecticut. It was actually the first case that ruled Americans have a right to privacy (or at least the first case to really begin to define what that right means).

Soon thereafter America became exceedingly more liberal. Women, minorities, etc. began to demand equal rights. Then in the 1970’s came the legal concept of no fault divorce (which has in essence been adopted by all US jurisdictions). This period was the dawn of the secular age, and the beginning of our march toward a post-Christian society. Like any period of dramatic change there will be positive and negative things that happen. However, logic always wins the day, and the nuclear family has been around for thousands of years before any religion (and it has always withstood the musings of social change).

Having used the Pill for medical reasons (which is permitted) and later sought other solutions that did not involve the Pill, I can see why there is such a difference.

I have also seen it in my friends who have been both on and off the Pill (non-Catholic so no religious reasons involved).

Even if one takes the prohibition against divorce completely out of the equation it makes no difference. The reason why contraception negatively affects marriage is social not religious.

the pill isn’t going away … unless they invent a better pill. Whether the pill effects marriage or not is hardly something that can be quantified (I’ve never heard an intensive study done of this question anyway). Like I said legalization of contraception occurred in tandem with all sorts of social change in this country. It’s most likely more people began getting divorced because a divorce became easier to acquire (I think Ireland is a good test case for this, because I believe when they moderated their divorce laws about 15 years ago divorce rates jumped pretty dramatically).

So off hand I would opine that the nexus you’re trying to draw between contraception and divorce is fallacious (but again it’s speculation).

 

[Faith_at_Large]

I’m not sure whether or not you’re right about that. The first case to rule contraceptive use is a fundamental right was Griswold v. Connecticut. It was actually the first case that ruled Americans have a right to privacy (or at least the first case to really begin to define what that right means).

Soon thereafter America became exceedingly more liberal. Women, minorities, etc. began to demand equal rights. Then in the 1970’s came the legal concept of no fault divorce (which has in essence been adopted by all US jurisdictions). This period was the dawn of the secular age, and the beginning of our march toward a post-Christian society. Like any period of dramatic change there will be positive and negative things that happen. However, logic always wins the day, and the nuclear family has been around for thousands of years before any religion (and it has always withstood the musings of social change).

the pill isn’t going away … unless they invent a better pill. Whether the pill effects marriage or not is hardly something that can be quantified (I’ve never heard an intensive study done of this question anyway). Like I said legalization of contraception occurred in tandem with all sorts of social change in this country. It’s most likely more people began getting divorced because a divorce became easier to acquire (I think Ireland is a good test case for this, because I believe when they moderated their divorce laws about 15 years ago divorce rates jumped pretty dramatically).

So off hand I would opine that the nexus you’re trying to draw between contraception and divorce is fallacious (but again it’s speculation).

I am curious as to where you get the idea that the nuclear family is so longstanding as to have been around thousands of years before any religion.

As for the rest. Yes, there have been numerous studies on the subject and the further we go along the more information that comes up. The latest that describes the Pill as the “Divorce Pill” because of its affects on the ability of women to choose their mates.

I will see what I can drum up for you.

 

[sympathy07]

You want to change your life but its very difficult task. If you have family problems then you can do it.