Atheism is the fastest shrinking religion in the world. Atheism is in decline worldwide...

Atheism is the fastest shrinking religion in the world. Atheism is in decline worldwide, with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world's population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020,

Real surveys and statistics say atheism is on the decline worldwide. Sorry atheists but atheism is not on the rise nor is it winning. It's still the minority and a declining one at that.

The Pew Research Center's statistics show that atheism is expected to continue to decline all the way into 2050 with a continued growth of religion. Other research also shows a huge surge in growth for Christianity in China which is currently the world's most "atheist" nation because of the atheist communist government suppressing religion, the research suggests that China will soon become the world's most Christian nation within 15 years.

This is simply history repeating itself: Christianity prospered in Rome back in the ancient era when it was suppressed and it still grew in the militant atheist soviet Russia when it was suppressed there only a century ago with the majority of Russians today now also identifying as Christian. Just goes to show that atheist suppression of religion still doesn't stop religion.

Sources for the legion of whiny /Redditor/ fedoras that will no doubt show up it this thread:

pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-unaffiliated/
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_kdV-TBQZDw
youtube.com/watch?v=co-sqDuTwyA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

*Tips fedora

>lack of religion or spiritual belief

>a religion

apathy is the only correct answer desu senpai

Christianity isn't a religion. It's only the lack of belief in ontological naturalism.

>Have total faith in an unprovable claim being correct
>Treat Dwakins as and demigod
>Anyone ever questions you just quote scripture from the God Delusion

I would say it's the most goy religion around considering it was literally (((they))) who pushed it into the mainstream in the first place. You know what it is that makes atheism the worst religion? The fact they tell you how they're free thinkers, but only ever parrot what Dawkins or Hitchens says. I suppose it plays into their lives brilliantly though because they're the same people who are anti-establishment, but demand things like open borders and tranny toilets because it's what the establishment wants and they need to stick it to the establishment.

I hate how atheists pull the "atheism is just a lack of belief, and nothing else" card. They'll say that to get out of being BTFO, but when among themselves they'll quickly act like a social-group. It's sort of like when communists denounce the Soviet Union, and say they weren't true communists, and then go and use Hammer and Sickles with Lenin quotes.

>atheism is a religion

It really isn't though, quoting Dawkins and Hitchens is usually when there is an atheist-religious debate and atheists are repeating their arguments(because they make very competent ones), but atheists don't live their lives off of what they say, they just live life as they want without any overarching rule set

I don't believe in any gods because none of them have any solid evidence or arguments for their existence, is that so hard to understand?

You're retarded. What about polytheism

I hate religious people are so retarded they think lacking a belief in a god is a religion and they so consistently get btfo even by edgy leftwing fedora wearing faggots that they have to repeat what the fedora tippers say back to them in the hopes that it makes sense

Everyone has a religion, even atheist

If you have morals, you have a religion

Atheism is in decline because shit skin mudslimes and Chinese Christians have 40 fucking kids in each family

>atheism
>religion
Wew

But that is wrong you fucking retard.

>Atheism is on the decline
Sure dude.
Sure. ;)

Religion is inherently about faith, usually in a supernatural element. Having morals doesn't make one religious.

...

Morality to mean anything requires objectivity. If morality is relative, it means nothing. Atheism is simply the first step towards nihilism and self-destruction.

Morality can just as easily be a collective agreement.

You simply need to be able to back it up.

Moral is for fools:

We are no guiltier in following the primative impulses that govern us than is the Nile for her floods or the sea for her waves.

-De Sade

It's not a religion, go look it up in the dictionary before posting this pasta.

No it can't. In order to be a collective agreement you have to take into account everyone in the society and the fact that people can dissent and rebel against that agreement. Why is the serial killer morally wrong? He simply came to a different consensus than the rest of the community at large. Is that so wrong? Is that not how atheism itself started out? What right do you have to question his moral judgements?

After that it's a slippery slope into nihilism, and after that it's simply an inevitable choice between suicide, murder, murder-suicide, or finding God.

The final one is preferable. I know because I rode that slope to the bottom and came out a Christian. I know what lays in that abyss that you're sliding into.

The irony of that pic

Except you don't have to take everyone into account, just enough to enforce it. It isn't any different from how religion did things, it all works on the same basic premise which is that if enough people get together and decide something they can enforce that set of morals.

...

Faith in that serving your morals is what God wants.

Having morals is just as Faith based as believing in God.
Nothing about nature suggests it's good to have morals. In fact most the time it's counter productive.

If you have or believe in morals you have just as much Faith as a Muslim or Christian you uneducated faggot

We have what every other natural force on the planet doesn't have though, sentience. We are aware of ourselves, and thus can change our selves and our fate with it. Your moral nihilism is simply from lack of knowledge about yourself, you are afraid to peer into yourself and determine your own fate because you are afraid of what you might find when you look. Everyone is a mess on the inside when you don't look there for a while. You will not like what you find, but you must confront it if you ever hope to find meaning in life.

Watch this for a start, along with some of Dr. Peterson's other lectures. He helped me out of the same hole you're in.
youtube.com/watch?v=_kdV-TBQZDw

But isn't enforcing morality on others the same thing that you criticize Christians for doing?

Morals are literally just a set of principles on how you think people should act. You don't need faith to come up with ideas on how people should organise themselves.

>atheism is a religion

This is to be expected. Retards outbreed intelligent people.

No, I just don't agree with what they want to enforce. Everyone getting together and saying murder is bad makes sense since nobody wants to be murdered, so it makes logical sense to collectively outlaw it as a means of individuals protecting themselves. If everyone comes together and opposes it then obviously everyone, including yourself, is less likely to be murdered.

Sorry you never actually stated that I was looking at another post.

Still, that is the same fabric from which the current atheist movement is sprung, isn't it? And if morality is relative why is your morality worth enforcing? A general rule in philosophy is best summed up as everything= anything=
nothing. If every moral system is acceptable, than any moral system is acceptable, hence morality means nothing. And down the slope you go.

>And if morality is relative why is your morality worth enforcing?

This has been an issue literally forever, even when most people were religious. People getting into disagreements over which set of morals (in the framework of political ideology) should be enforced was the cause of a lot of historical conflict.

Wrong.

Faith is what you have in ideas an atheist calls morals.
A common exa.ple given is men are equal. Or do unto others.

Both objectively bad for you as a organism. But necessary for human development and thus deemed moral.

As in you have Faith in the morals instead of a religious person having Faith that their designated book has the correct morals.

Only idiotic children that have no knowledge of physiology think atheists are not Faith based.

Why does it matter if nobody wants to be murdered? The point is I want to murder someone. I don't care if they like it. That's part of my morality.

Why is self-defense moral? I don't want my victims to defend themselves, so that's not part of my morality.

I don't care if other people try to murder me. I am willing to take that risk if it means I get to murder others.

I don't care if the majority of society doesn't agree. They can argue their morality with the end of my knife. It doesn't matter because it's all relative.

Psychology *

Not a disagreement over morals, persay. More of a disagreement on how to interpret the source of objective morality, aka. the Bible, the Quran, the words of Confucious or Buddha.

And if you do murder someone the rest will kick your ass. Morality has always been might makes right, even in religion where what is moral is decided by what the most powerful being in the universe allegedly says

Me on the left

If morality is simply might makes right, why is our current moral system based on the idea that the strong should serve the weak?

>I hate how atheists pull the "atheism is just a lack of belief, and nothing else" card.
Look up the definition of atheism.

Because that's what the majority of people currently think. Might makes right doesn't mean everyone has to be an asshole, rather that those with the means to enforce morality get to decide what it is

I'm not sure how to interpret these, I'm not religious but when they ask me I'll just say I'm a christian.

Maybe it's true that the label of atheist is on the decline but I'm not sure that practicing religion is on the rise.

The dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. A dictionary definition means nothing when compared to real linguistic usage. Unless you think that having sex with a woman makes you feel gay?

It is literally a lack of belief in the supernatural. whether or not you wanna tack on humanistic tenets or some organised morality is a different story. Get educated boyo.

mainly because the weak dont have as much means to serve the strong, and the current zeigest advocates a more compassionate and equal society?

>doesnt know what morals are
>using faith

He wasnt wrong. You implying it is faith is retarded. Belief? Yes, because theres evidence for it.

Neither of what you provided is objetively wrong, if others didnt follow those rules then we would be objectively worse off. More death/injury/etc.

Atheism isnt faith based, if you think that then you dont underatand what faith or belief means in correct context.

>A dictionary definition means nothing when compared to real linguistic usage

What the fuck am i reading?

How when turkey and jen or seven?

All the "scientists" used yo shill athiesm which is ironic because there is no way to logically prove or disprove God.

The bible even says "it is foolishness to the Greeks" (scientists, logisticians) rather it is a matter of faith which stands contra logic.

Atheism is literally retardenessess.

I dont think you understand what i said.

>"...which is ironic because there is no way to logically prove or disprove God"

Atheists dont try to do either. You dont know what atheism is.

>"you can't prove or disprove god so atheism is retarded"

You can't prove there's an invisible pink untouchable unicorn right next to you right now but you're not actually agnostic about its existence, are you?

The majority opinion is often wrong. If 80% of the population wanted to exploit the remaining 20%, would that be moral? (assuming of course that all 80% were behind it). You're basically democratizing morality and importing all the problems with democracy along with it.

atheists, is it wrong to eat babies?
explain your reasoning

didn't mean to reply to the singaporean specifically

There is no objective "rules from the sky" type morality in atheism. I can't speak for all atheists but values such as compassion and empathy guide our actions. So in an overwhelmingly general sense, i would say it is not acceptable to eat a baby.

Subjective morality is in no way inferior to moral code set down by a deity; some religions think its fine to eat a baby, some say no. Some urge their followers to enslave nonbelievers.

This. I'm curious to your answers.

Compassion and empathy mean nothing in relative morality. What justifies their importance as virtues in your moral system?

Atheism is partially responsible for the death of the West. Not all but most atheists are left wing nut jobs anyway.

No; look up well-being.

Didn't even need to pretend God told me that.

>Compassion and empathy mean nothing in relative morality.

To who? You? They mean things to us, why pretend we're wrong when you act on it as well?

The majority very often do exploit minority groups, that has been a constant throughout history. People ended up opposing it now because many realise they could very easily end up being a minority if the situation were to change, therefore protecting minorities can happen through a sense of doing to others what you'd want them to do for you. It's all under the idea that if everyone is protected then there is less stress and insecurity for everyone, including those currently in the majority

If you're a Christian, you need to understand that atheism is merely the "useful idiots" analog coined by Brzezinski.

Their primary existence is to destabilize Christian nations morally and ideologically. To open the floodgates to the idea of multiple religions instead of the truth that is Christ, to distort the reality of His crucifixion.

In the end, yes, they're slated to go away simply because of what we know about the beast and the antichrist.

The antichrist will by no means simply be secular, or else he would not demand to be worshiped. He is described as doing miraculous wonders that cause people to worship him, pointing to a supernatural cause which atheism adamantly disbelieves.

If anything, atheists will likely be the first people to worship the antichrist.

In a cosmic sense nothing really means anything. You live then you die. But surely its an observable fact that treating others with kindness begets a more harmonious society thats more preferable to live in.

>militant atheist and womans rights activist

Most of them are mgtowtards you faggot

>Their primary existence is to destabilize Christian nations morally and ideologically.

The conspiracy in the first sentence. What silliness; do you have any evidence to suggest this is true? Or did you just want to assert its true? You're not understanding what atheism is, like the rest of the theists in this thread. None of you can grasp even the definition of atheism. Jumping to step 10 & pulling out this silly conspiracy shit is either 0/10 bait or you're mentally ill.

This again.
Let me explain why you and the people who share your beliefs are retarded:

>most of humanity is still living in shithole countries with no real education
>god is an easy answer to complicated questions that even the lowest intelect can grasp
>these people fuck 24/7, have lots of kids (that's why atheism is apparently going down)
>global population is going to stabilize around 10 billion by the end of the century
>fertility rates will drop in thirld world countries as it did in the west a century ago
>less kids, better education, more critical thinking
>religion shrinks, atheism goes up
>last religious people go violent, they don't want to let go of religion witch precipitates even more their downfall
>all religions go extinct within 3 centuries

Enjoy your superstitions, they will die soon after you and enlightenment will prevale.

>Decline of whites
>Decline of atheism
Coincidence? I don't think so.

...

>conspiracy

Without going into a tangent, most of the conspiracy theories in just the past 15 years have turned out to be true. So, attempting to undermine an argument as such isn't going to work when that fact is pointed out.

As for evidence, look around and into the recent past. This is something self evident.

>You're not understanding what atheism

One of the major components in atheism arguments is the fact that there are multiple religions in the world. One of the major atheism vs Christianity arguments is that Christianity is false because "there's so many other religions that can be true".

>None of you can grasp even the definition of atheism. Jumping to step 10 & pulling out this silly conspiracy shit is either 0/10 bait or you're mentally ill.

My claims are self-evident here.

looks like that's just your opinion, and only based on your feelings.
not really a solid justification
>They mean things to us, why pretend we're wrong when you act on it as well?
it makes sense in the Christian worldview to afford human decency to fellow image-bearers of God.
it's irrational in an atheistic one, they're just meat robots.

it's almost as if the reason you intuit that eating babies is wrong is because you're suppressing your knowledge that God, infact, exists, and that there actually are objective moral truth values, duties, and obligations

No, I mean what gives them value? Just because you have a certain moral code doesn't mean an uncompassionate, unempathetic sociopath doesn't share that same one. If morality is relative, than the that sociopath's morality is just as valid as yours. You can disagree, but it's the same sort of disagreement you can have with someone over their favorite pizza toppings or their favorite color. They are all relative.

I agree. That degree of reciprocity is necessary for a functional, moral society. However you could still have someone who disagrees with that societal structure altogether. Elitists and aristocrats with moral systems opposed to the majority have gained power in the past, I don't think they cared too much for reciprocity. While those usually don't end up lasting very long, some have lasted quite a while (see any communist country that has lasted more than half a century).

What does "well-being" have to do with morality?

Why do you value a harmonious society? The Earth will be gone in a few billion years anyway, so what does it matter?

>Without going into a tangent, most of the conspiracy theories in just the past 15 years have turned out to be true.

100% false Alex Jones. They are an absolute minority.

>As for evidence, look around and into the recent past.

Look around is your evidence? LOL k

>One of the major components in atheism arguments is the fact that there are multiple religions in the world.

No, but it is a fact. The claims made by individual religions are what atheism is based off of. I wouldn't say "because theres a ton of them, i just don't believe in any of them." I would ask how you'd know that one is true, though.

>One of the major atheism vs Christianity arguments is that Christianity is false because "there's so many other religions that can be true".

This doesn't make sense. Claiming it's false because there's too many doesn't make sense. Claiming it's diluted within other religions seems more of a solid statement.

>My claims are self-evident here
Wrong & that's not how discussions work. If you think that's how it works here, then I'm just right & you're just wrong. The end.

>it's irrational in an atheistic one, they're just meat robots.

You defining what is & isnt rational in something you don't understand seems dishonest.

>suppressing knowledge of God
Feel free to provide some to sway my opinion.

>Just because you have a certain moral code doesn't mean an uncompassionate, unempathetic sociopath doesn't share that same one.

They fall on the merit of the argument. This stuff isn't difficult. You don't own slaves because God said it's okay, right? You know it's wrong. You used your own brain to reason rationally, you don't have to pretend we don't or can't.

>What does "well-being" have to do with morality?
Everything? I'm not sure how to answer this.

>You defining what is & isnt rational in something you don't understand seems dishonest.
i understand atheism, i know your mantra: "it is merely the absence of belief in a deity"
i also understand the things that would logically follows from that premise

>Feel free to provide some to sway my opinion.
you already have it,
that's why you don't act like someone who truly believes they live in a godless world where there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, and nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

So if you didn't believe in god you would literally eat babies?

Fuckk I think I understand the necessity for religion now

>So if you didn't believe in god you would literally eat babies?
not at all what i'm saying.
i'm saying if God does not exist, there wouldn't be anything wrong with doing so.

If not for the rule of law you would. We wouldn't even if forced.

>All these people claiming "atheism, is not a religion"

There are literally Atheist Mega Churches now.

youtube.com/watch?v=co-sqDuTwyA

If it has a church, it's a religion. No matter how retarded the ideology.

The New Testament supercedes the old one, the NT doesn't allow for slavery.

Are you using a different definition of "well-being"? What definition are you using?

So if not for god being taught to you through whatever indoctrination you faced as a child you would have turned into a baby eater?

>NT doesn't allow for slavery
Shill detected. There is no such thing in New Testament.

Atheists seem to want the benefits of having an implemented Christian moral system with none of the personal responsibility that goes along with it.

>So if not for god being taught to you through whatever indoctrination you faced as a child you would have turned into a baby eater?
did you even read the post you're replying to?

Don't tell me I'd eat babies, why would I? would I want to be eaten? Would I want my baby eaten? Maybe it's odd to be born with empathy but I was never indoctrinated by any religion yet I can still tell right from wrong.

atheism is better than islam desu

*tips fedora*

Yes you said if god doesn't exist there be no point not eating babies. You saying that is akin to saying without your indoctrination you would be an immoral savage creature.

>Alex Jones

Let's see. Bilderberg meetings, Bohemian Grove, NSA massive spying, NSA backdoors, Clinton corruption, Obama corruption, Bush corruption, real motivations of the afghan/iraqi wars, etc.

>Look around is your evidence? LOL k

Are you advocating willfull ignorance?

>I would ask how you'd know that one is true, though.

Because I actually took time to look.

>This doesn't make sense. Claiming it's false because there's too many doesn't make sense. Claiming it's diluted within other religions seems more of a solid statement.

It does not matter if it makes sense to you, the fact of the matter is that it's an argument used at large. And again, reread the post, it's about detracting from the truth of Christianity by pointing out other religions..

>Wrong & that's not how discussions work. If you think that's how it works here, then I'm just right & you're just wrong. The end.

There's plenty of evidence out there that your style of argument doesn't really lend anything meaningful. It's also self evident.

>without your indoctrination you would be an immoral savage creature
Yes?

Alright then, give me a verse to work from.

And don't give me the Epistle of Philemon, because biblical scholars already disproved that as a mistranslation of "lower class worker" rather than slave. Plus, it was used in an analogy anyway.

WHat i'm suposed to give you? A non existing verse condemning slavery?

And thus my original statement stands. Idk why you guys argue against me I'm on your side, people born without empathy need a system to control them, hence religion.
And therefore religion's existence is justified.

>Atheism is the fastest shrinking religion
>religion
Stopped reading there

>indoctrination
what do you mean by this?

>immoral
i already know what you mean by this, "things that hurt my fee-fee's"

>1601▶
> (OP)
Anything can become a religion. Look at people and sports

atheism
noun athe·ism \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Indoctrination is the process in which you educate someone to think and believe what you want them to. In context it would be reading the Bible, going to church, celebrating Christmas and Easter.

Immoral behavior is both relative and collective. from my perspective anyone who harms another person unjustifiably is immoral. From society's perspective it'd be breaking a law.

Bunch of rap listening fags, gtfo with 'em