Talk:Decline of atheism

Ideas:

 * The title of the article takes for granted that atheism is losing its appeal. but this is a subjective statement, which varies by individual.  for some, atheism is losing its appeal.  for others, it never had any appeal at all.  for still others, its appeal has only grown.  the title of the article seems to assume something as true that is hotly debated;
 * Perhaps this article should take a step back from trying to "prove" that atheism is losing its appeal. Those who are not atheists already know this, and those who are atheists do not think it is true.
 * Perhaps this article should instead focus on particular issues in atheism, including:
 * Changing demographics over the years;
 * Arguments made for and against in recent years;
 * recent developments in science that make atheism appear less probable

what do you think? Ungtss 22:29, 14 December 2005 (GMT)


 * I suggest we retitle it "Issues in Atheism" or something in that vein, to provide for a more neutral tone. Ungtss 22:39, 14 December 2005 (GMT)

I don't agree with the above. The secular Europeans except for Muslim immigration are in a declining population situation. Also, Europe is in the doldrums currently. Christianity is exploding in Asia as a whole (because China is so populous) and I cited good sources. I could continue but I think I made my point. Creationist 23:19, 14 December 2005 (GMT)creationist
 * I don't understand what you mean. I agree with you that Christianity is exploding in China.  But do you not agree that the article should adopt a more neutral tone while keeping all the extremely strong evidence to support your point?  Ungtss 23:22, 14 December 2005 (GMT)
 * From a worldwide perspective atheism is losing its appeal. I think we should call a spade a spade and not sugar coat it or obscure this.  In the lands of the former Soviet Union and in China atheism is less popular and in China Christianity is exploding.  Those are huge population centers.  Secular European influence is waning (secular population stagnation, etc. etc.).   I say blast the trumpet because the politically correct types are not going to do it.

Creationist 23:31, 14 December 2005 (GMT)creationist


 * i definitely believe in sounding the trumpet -- but what do you say we blast the trumpet with the facts that support your opinion, and tone down our conclusions about it? facts are magical: they speak for themselves.  i just don't want our facts to be drowned out by our proclamations of victory:).  Ungtss 23:37, 14 December 2005 (GMT)


 * I don't believe that "Issues in atheism" is a good title for the aforementioned reasons. Also, "Issues in atheism" will likely never be read as I believe it is a rather dull title.  I think it obscures things to boot.  Creationist 23:44, 14 December 2005 (GMT)creationist
 * You may very well be right. What about "Decline of Atheism"  I'm just looking for something a little more concise and neutral.  Nobody can argue against the fact that atheism is declining, worldwide.  but they can argue about it losing its appeal.  or any other suggestion you might have would be great, too ... Ungtss 23:46, 14 December 2005 (GMT)


 * I am glad you didn't take the above criticism personally. I just think "Issues in atheism" is a boring title. I do think you made some improvements to the article. I have no problems with the "decline of atheism" as a title.  Creationist 23:49, 14 December 2005 (GMT)creationist


 * Fantastic:). Nothing personal here -- we're all on the same team, trying to put this wiki together:).  I'll make the change:).  Ungtss 23:52, 14 December 2005 (GMT)


 * I am glad that red ugly reformatting tag is gone for the article.  I just sent a email to someone I know who owns a site that gets 1 million hits a month to link to the article.  He linked to my Bible scientific foreknowledge article at 5 places on his website.   I am merely asking for one link for this article. :)   Creationist 00:07, 15 December 2005 (GMT)creationist
 * good deal:). Ungtss 00:36, 15 December 2005 (GMT)

Misinterpretation
I believe this article implies that atheism is in decline due to its irrelevance in the modern world. This makes sense in theory because atheism is no longer a viable position in the modern world, but that is not why it is statistically declining. Atheism in the United States is actually not in decline (it was never really statistically notable in the first place!), in Europe it is the short term (20 yr) effect of the shift from Communist-atheism of the USSR to the more recent Militant atheism pioneered in Europe years earlier, losing many to paganism in the process due to the gullibility of the adherents to Communism. In China, the so-called atheism that everyone was supposed to adhere to is in fact plain communist lying and misinterpreted confucianism.

Or, in short: This article says Christianity has already beaten atheism. In reality, this is sadly not yet the case. In Europe, Atheism is in an intermediate stage. In China, Christianity has triumphed, not over atheism as we know it buy over traditional animism, Taoism, and spiritualism Confucianism.

The issue I take with this article is that it makes it seem like statistically atheism is weak, and therefore de-emphasizes the threat that secularism poses to our institutions. As Obama's policies and the expulsion of all traces of religion from schools show, Atheism is as dangerous as it was 10 years ago, and we still must fight it if we want to defend our democracy--ThinkerTalksee my blog 16:19, 1 October 2010 (PDT).
 * I think atheism finds good company in the world intellectual environment of today in a more subtle way that bullets and bombs of the USSR are not needed anymore. There maybe something between Obama and his "citizen of the world" obsession and the ability for Communism, Socialism, essentially MAN to develop substantially different than we have seen, through the United States intelligentsia. Meaning America is becoming the intellectual center, of an experiment, without concern for God, of which pushes the world in the same direction as well. Faster and more radical then ever, due to essentially a gradual erosion of values and really an 18th or 19th century mentality within the American psyche. A literal, "new world order" is being crafted, with the most radical anti-constraint President in American politics ever, one could say and argue. A dual purpose is acheived by Obama, knowingly or not, which is America becomes equal to all other countries through forced degradation of dynamics in the economy, and a fully realized anti-God government becomes instituted with socialism/progressivism/communism and revolutionary MAN at its core.
 * In other words, the US is the new battleground intellectually in this regard. It is not Brittian, USSR, or Europe that is introducing intellectual revolution, but Americas turn. It assumes quite the same identity but packaged with especially focused vigor upon rhetoric over scientific scrutiny or critical analysis. It is ironic that many reduce God to man-made superstition, yet produce a persona of a person, namely Obama that becomes messianic merely based on his words. God becomes man, which is a traceable notion throughout mans history. Will the elite and academic society stand by and welcome the creeping approach of intellectual and societal order completely founded upon changing what has worked? Will they think there is no danger like the establishment did with Hitler? Or will we stand up? I think those with our views, and who recognize the rise not decline and utter disappearance of Atheism, will stand up.--Tony 23:58, 1 October 2010 (PDT)


 * I agree that atheism is a threat in America, and I think this article downplays the threat more than you and I can afford. Atheism is evil, it is socialistic, it is elite, it is dangerous, it is growing, but it is sadly not weak. Now is the time to be fighting it with all of our strength, not prematurely proclaiming victory!!! This article ought to be completely removed, revamped, regeared, or at least fixed.--ThinkerTalksee my blog 08:28, 2 October 2010 (PDT)
 * I am not sure if the terms growing, declining are enough. We should highlight that it has always been there. Getting rid of the article I think should not happen, but to supplement the Atheism article we should create the Rise of Atheism, or present within the Atheism article itself how the ideology is almost permanent in the minds of many intellectuals since the 19th century or so... --Tony 15:21, 2 October 2010 (PDT)


 * I guess growing and declining can mean a number of things: power, prominence, adherents, adherents as a % of world pop'n, money, adherent leaders, occurence in other religious traditions... There are so many ways to define growth and decline, this article doesn't give the whole ugly picture on atheism. Perhaps we ought to split it up into the different ways of looking at this complex topic, ie Appeal of Atheism, Atheism in Politics, Demographics of Atheism, Atheism and Elitism, Wealth and Atheism, etc. But that would be a lot of work and we'ed certainly miss at least a few kew points in the process. What do you suggest we do? I don't think the status quo is compelling or complete enough compared to some of our other articles and topics. Could we have input from the main writers of this piece?--ThinkerTalksee my blog 19:43, 2 October 2010 (PDT)
 * I just think we could make a paragraph or two within the Atheism article talking about the subjects we feel are important. Just create another heading with relevant text.--Tony 20:19, 2 October 2010 (PDT)


 * Indeed we shall do that, but more importantly we have to do something about this article right here. The topic of whether atheism is rising or declining is complex, and we only cover one side of the issue. I am not familiar for standard procedure. Normally, would we/I/you/someone else overhaul the article, delete it and add on to the main Atheism article, create an article explaining the opposite view and leave this one the same, or something else? I do not believe that the current article sufficiently describes either the cCPOV or the whole picture. --ThinkerTalksee my blog  15:47, 4 October 2010 (PDT)
 * No need to overhaul, just add our portion that makes the weight more even.--Tony 16:53, 4 October 2010 (PDT)