UK: 70% of young people are 'not religious' according to a report - Sensationalist Headlines

You're probably right seeing as most peoples parents aren't actively religious either. So you'll get the religious people who grew up in that environment and everyone else will be far more cynical by the time they reach adolescence/adulthood. But the irrelevancy of the church also means you see far less people becoming religious later in life. So over time you're probably seeing more people become atheist or agnostic than you do going the other way.

Seeing as we're sharing. I read the bible til I was 9. My parents weren't religious really, they did talk about god and the like but not big chruch goers. I had always shown an interest in the subject, and asked for my dad to start reading me the bible. At 7 he got me my own bible. When I was 8, I went to see my aunt and uncle in Alberta. He was the family member I'd designated my playmate for as long as I'd known him. He was really one of my best friends as a lonely kid. On the first night we stayed with him, I begged to sleep in his and my aunts bed. No big deal kiddo, have a good night my parents told me. I woke up the next morning and I felt my uncles arms around me, tight almost. I couldn't move his arms off of me. I couldn't breathe. I started to panic and wriggle, and eventually got free. My uncle had died in the middle of the night, while holding me. He had cancer, not something he, my aunt, or anyone else was aware of, but he'd died of cancer that night, holding me. We went to the church in Alberta to plan the funeral services. I remember being pre-occupied as much as I could be. I remember that I threw my gameboy pocket to the ground, and a priest walked over to me, picked it up and handed it to me. I was already in tears from the trauma of the events of the last few days, and I asked the priest through a clenched jaw and tears "Why?". The priest didn't have a lot to say to me, and I don't blame him. What do you tell a kid who's gone through that? I still don't know because it still hurts, but that was the moment when I asked myself why God hated me so much, and from that came the eventual renouncing of my faith.

Please reread what you just wrote, and know that it means that basically everyone from the beginning of mankind until the 1900s was either dishonest or had a mental problem. This is the mentally that I honestly have a hard time taking seriously. You're taking something that has been a central facet of human life and meaning for literally thousands upon thousands of years, and throwing it in the bin of idiocy. Are you really that much better than all those people?

They did have a mental problem, but in the case of people of the past the 'mental problem' was simply ignorance.

Ignorant of what, specifically? It's not like we aren't still ignorant of TONS of things, and honestly have even deeper questions about how it all came about.

Hi, I too have had "dark days" from elementary school to post high school. I've been physically beaten, spit on, mentally abused and sexually assualted by my peers. I've had no one believe me when I speak truths because "it's you". I've had people insult me because of my appearance, thrown mud in my face, have had rocks thrown at me and had people ride bicycles over me. Hell I've had people jump on my head on my first day of school after pushing me to the ground. I've even had my clothes thrown in a sewer drain. Guess what? This was all in Christian School. The bible does not make you a good person. Why does some paper written by old sexist and racists assholes trying to one up each other's religioun that's been edited over the years to get rid of fantasy elements and real world accounts of meeting famous individuals need to give you meaning in your life? Why do words on the internet affect you? Why does this old book make it so you now know not to hurt others or yourself? You should look to yourself rather then look to a thousand year old book for answers

Like, what's above the clouds, what are stars, what's astronomy, how does evolution work, how does DNA work, etc. Those are examples off the top of my head that previously would have given power to the irrational conclusion of "I can't think of any explanation, therefore God", whereas we now do have explanations. I agree we are still ignorant of tons of things. I think you should read what he wrote again, he said that it requires dishonesty or a mental problem to 'claim that you know there is more'. That should not be a controversial statement.

To me, outright rejecting God is just as foolish as believing in God. To me it's an equal stretch for an infinite being to create the universe as it is for the universe to have always existed. There is also the concept of the afterlife. Morals are cultural. Religion grounds it by keeping it in writing. For example, there are a lot of Tribes who have no issues with killing each other. It's just a part of life there. Also, the Bible is a really really interesting book in that it's not really a religious text, and it's been kind of distorted over the years to become one. For the most part it's basically written as historical work rather than a religious text.

You realize LOTS AND LOTS of people have believed in God after the discovery of what stars were? Right? You're clarification changes nothing. People have been "claiming" to "know" God existed for a long, long time, and lots of very smart people too (a lot smarter than you or I). Take Isaac Newton. He saw his mathematical proofs as evidence that a rational God existed. Was he being crazy or dishonest?

He was using faulty logic. If Isaac Newton wrote a mathematical proof of God's existence, please do show it.

Did he have a mental problem or was he being dishonest? Or are you now just saying you believe him to be wrong?

Since we're detailing why some people are no longer religious, I'll share my story. My parents raised me Catholic, but they were basically Cafeteria Christians - they believed in some parts of the bible, and didn't in others. They would go to church rarely, if ever. My dad when I was little never really talked about religion, but my mom told me all the stories and parables, and that if I prayed every night before bed to my rosary that god would look out for me. Every night I'd pray to God for all my friends and family to have good things happen to them and nothing bad happen. I was bullied pretty terribly in middle school. I'd pray to God for things to get better, but nothing really changed the whole four years there. I ended up having my parents send me to a private Catholic high school just so I wouldn't be with the same population in high school. The high school was primarily Jesuit, which are basically the academic sect of Catholicism (for reference, Pope Francis is Jesuit). The school had mandatory mass and religion classes, but you could agree to not participate in the mass if you weren't religious or believed in another faith. The classes described Catholicism very objectively, detailing the history of the creation of the bible, the historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth, and also detailed the faith and how it changed throughout the years. I finally started to understood a lot of faith I was brought up in, but this is about the time I started to develop depression. It was hard for me to reconcile Catholicism with the science classes I took. Evolution and Christianity was described as compatible, that God created the universe in the same time frame we know it's existed for and that Genesis was a parable made by people who wanted to explain how the world came to be before they could find the evidence. I could accept that. Physics and anatomy started to get me questioning my faith. The soul, the eternal, incorporeal essence of who we are, seemed to be incompatible with the scientific method. It was something that could not be measured nor detected. At the same time we understand that humans need a brain to live and thrive, which is the entirety of who we are, our personality, our free will, our memories, our beliefs. The brain being our soul was a connection to make, but the brain can be altered by chemicals, physical damage, age, which could entirely change the person we are. The goal posts then moved from the brain being the soul to the soul controlling the brain. But the soul still cannot be measured or detected. We know that the brain decays after death, but supposedly human souls will go to the afterlife for an eternity in heaven. We detect no emission of a soul from the corpse of a body, and with our vast knowledge of space via telescopes, satellites, and other equipment, we've yet to find a physical location for a heaven. If the soul simply stays in the body before the Rapture, then this goes into issues with cremation, amputation, disintegration, etc. Going back further into the history of the bible, Saint Paul in the letters to the Corinthians attempts to state the body and soul are separate, and that the body is perishable while the soul is not, but all will be returned via resurrection. Saint Augustine discusses an issue that arises from this: if a person is eaten by fish, and then the fish is eaten by a person, wouldn't that man's body be a part of another man, so how could resurrection distinguish what matter belongs to what person when resurrecting? Voltaire makes a similar claim with the cannibal French Soldier and the Iroquois cannibal. Augustine claims that the matter would basically go to whoever created it first, which opens another can of worms as the chemical processes our bodies undertake effectively turn food into our flesh, our blood, etc, which is heavily involved in creation of a human baby via the mother's nutrients. Additionally, flakes of skin, nail clippings, hair etc. are all parts of our bodies, so would they be resurrected as well? What about the millions of wasted sperm each time someone ejaculates? I haven't even gotten into the kafkaesque nightmare condundrums with free will, determinism (God's Plan) and the "Devil", eternal damnation and mental illness, omnipotent, omnipresent God that's completely hands off his own creation but will still judge the people he made that are for all intents and purposes defective by design, etc. At this point I stop to think that there's a much simpler answer to these increasing amount of rationalizations and unending questions. Religion, to me, makes sense as an easy answer to an unanswerable problem. When we stare into the chaotic, meaningless void of existence, we try to fathom the unfathomable, and it frightens us. Humans seek patterns, and try to understand the meaning behind the world, but the world is inherently meaningless, so we invent meaning and apply it to the world. Death is a primal fear. It's the end of our existence, and we can't fathom not existing. We did not exist before our birth, but we can't imagine going back to that state. Regrets and missed opportunites eat at us when we think of our limited time on this planet. We see loved ones who die, who we'll never see again, and it hurts to lose them. We don't understand why we exist, what created us, and how everything ends. So, when faced with this, we invent an answer. We give meaning to the meaningless. We say there's a god, an afterlife, that we'll see all our friends and family again, that the world is looking out for us, that a benevolent creator loves us, and everything is going according to one big plan. Random chaotic events happen for a reason, and not because the system in which we are a part of has caused an unfavorable outcome. Bad people are bad because they choose to be bad, not because they were born with a mental illness, or not given a good environment, or are forced into situations where they do bad things to survive. Good people will get rewarded, and those rich billionaires who destory our planet will be judged at the end of the world. It's comforting to have the answer, and the alternative is bleak and distressing, so we believe in religion. I respect people who still have faith, and I don't want to cause someone to lose their faith. To me, being an atheist is terrible, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. If I could be ignorant and believe in what I think isn't real, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But I can't force myself to believe in something I don't think is true. Sorry for the rant, but this is an issue that I've struggled with all my life, and getting it off my chest every once and a while is refreshing.

It's not faulty logic, It's confirmation bias. You can have two people look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions from it based on what they believe.

I'm sorry, I think I opened up a pointlessly vague word interpretation game. My initial point was simply that what he said wasn't controversial, because it definitely is dishonest or some form of fault if you claim to know that god exists. I'll agree that the term mental problem was bad and I shouldn't have tried to stretch its meaning to make his statement apply to people of the past. To answer your question, I wouldn't use the term 'mental problem', but I would instead say he used faulty logic.

Another way of saying it is just saying you think they're wrong. It's easy. I have no problem with people saying that they think other people are wrong. What I do have a problem with is the fairly commonly expressed belief that all religious people are either idiots or dishonest. That would be like a religious person saying that all atheists are a bunch of aimless idiots who pretend to have purpose and morality. (Yes, I know there are religious people who actually say that kind of thing, but I wouldn't support them either) These are deep and foundational beliefs. They have so much more to them than a simple insult can address.

But, they might not be wrong. The point is there is no logic or evidence that leads someone to be able to claim to know that a god exists, even if one does. And I disagree that it was necessarily an insult, remember the specific wording was 'claim to know', not 'believe'.

As I said, your wording changes nothing that I've said. It applies in the same way. ... Obviously Newton would have disagreed with you. He did claim to know that God existed, and that there was good evidence to do so, but you think he was wrong. I don't know why you're having a problem with that statement.

I think the "Good evidence" part of that is entirely a bias you've placed on the story. Newton was a genius, but I don't think his belief in God and devoutness to that belief neccesarily reflects on his accomplishments. If you're allowed to say Newton has "Good evidence" to believe in a God, then I really struggle with that because I strongly feel you'd claim no atheist or agnostic could ever have "Good evidence" to doubt or not believe in a God.

Newton claimed to have good evidence. That's my point at the moment.

I didn't say that they had a mental illness. But you don't offer a lot of respect to view points you don't agree with while seemingly demanding respect. I don't really get it. Newton claimed that. If I picked a good scientist from today, who also claims to have good evidence to not believe, you'd discount it, call them wrong, and move on, but we're not allowed to have the same judgements, or feelings? Hold yourself to the same standard you're holding us I guess, or don't, but don't act like respect is only given by one side. I don't have any desire to remove religion from peoples lives in an active sense, but I don't see the reasons you claim to be "Good" as "good". You don't see the reasons I would claim as "good" to be "Good". It's that simple. I'm not disrespecting you.

I literally just said a few posts ago that I'm fine with people calling religious people wrong, but that I'm not fine with calling them dishonest or mentally ill. I just don't know who you're responding to, but it doesn't seem to be me.

What reason is there to believe in god then? Tell me the evidence or logical proof that are not dishonest or completely illogical.

my parents were super apathetic in imparting a few different aspects of life and one of them was religion, despite being religious themselves. i grew up with little to no concept of religion at a young age. i think i properly understood the concept of religion around the time atheism was explained to me. because of that i don't really have an 'atheist coming out' story, nor any semblance of understanding spirituality. i feel like i might have been a lot less of an edgy fedoratheist if i were brought up believing in something initially, but at the same time, raising your kids to be inherently religious is something i'm sort of against. also fun fact did you guys know the use of the word atheism predates the word theism, so isn't that just an interesting thing.

Where is the truth? We legitimately want to know, why wouldnt we?

People would generally rather have their own beliefs confirmed than be proven wrong. The idea that we're all out on the pursuit of truth simply isn't true. Some scientists have even posited that our rationality developed for the purpose of winning arguments, not to find truth at all. (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090) I'm not putting that on you specifically. It's just a general thing that we all, as humans, need to keep in mind. Honestly, I've shied away from online religious discussion more and more because it takes far too much effort for the derision that it's usually treated to. Why put in the effort to present a fairly complex argument when people seem just fine with someone insulting the entirety of religious people as "dishonest" or "mentally ill?" Clearly this isn't a place where people are going to be balanced. So, instead, I put my efforts into personal conversations where I know everyone involved has each other's best interest at heart. Even if we disagree, we can continue as friends who respect each other. There's a ton of information out there. If you're truly interested, then my lack of desire to argue the point won't stop you from learning.

Okay....So you appeal to nature to justify your assumption that other people are simply out to confirm their own beliefs? No man, that's not what atheists do. Why would we want a Godless Heavenless Afterlifeless world? Who would honestly want that and not want to see proof of there being more? Maybe on general issues you may be right, but you're absolutely wrong about atheists not being willing to destroy their atheism. Why is it so hard for you to prove god? Why does it require a complex argument, why isnt it evident anywhere in any way? There is no point where God was necessary in the history of the universe, so where do you insert him? Why do you need him?

I don't think you know what an "appeal to nature" is. That means you're saying that because something is natural, then it must also be good. It's an application of the is/ought fallacy. That's also not at all what I did. I pointed out that it's very possible people aren't out to figure out truth. In fact, it's likely. Why would people want that? Because people like to be right, and that's all people, including myself. If you can't prove the nature of quantum mechanics to me right now, then it must be false, right? No, of course not. Some things take time, study, etc. The fact that it's hard doesn't make it false.

I could easily show you some resources that would prove quantum mechanics to you, however I'm certain you couldn't show me a holy book that could prove god to me, let alone even agree with your personal interpretations entirely. If there is God, why is he not evident? Why is he hidden behind hours of studying and apparently a bunch of wishful thinking? If he is basically trying to hide, then why is he findable at all? If he isn't trying to hide, why the fuck would he not just reveal himself to everyone? And ultimately, how can a god ever punish a mere human for not finding the "truth" between the thousands of contradictory religions? What is the point of your belief besides that it helps you sleep at night? That's where my claim of irrationality and dishonesty come from.

I don't really care if someone chooses to believe that a god created the universe, but the is no evidence to suggest that this god interfered with human life, as every organized religion claims. Therefore, I think it is far more likely that these religions were the invention of a person or group of people who told lies or were mentally ill (seeing/hearing things that aren't there). It doesn't really matter how many scientists had a belief in god. There are plenty of people who are capable of following the scientific method excellently in most cases, but completely shut off rationality when it comes to religion. Some people just really want to believe in things like the afterlife and just punishments for bad people, because they are really appealing. But reality doesn't bend to what your beliefs are.

You could throw some sources out, sure, but it would take time and study for me to actually come to an understanding of the full truth of quantum mechanics. I've done some study already, and have a very basic knowledge, but there's so much that I don't understand about it that would take lots of time to dig into. Personally, I think the existence of some creator is evident (the fact that there is no logically consistent alternative is an interesting discussion to have, for example). If you want something more specifically Christian, then read Gary Habermas's PhD thesis on the resurrection, or some of his debates with top atheist Biblical scholars. The "point" of my belief is that I believe it to be true... what else would there be?