More Americans say the have no Religion

At least the number keeps growing. Nice to see Vermont so high...true enough that I have always wanted to live there and did not realize how non-religious they are up there.

This is extremely good news. I sure hope the survey was conducted professionally as stats can be twisted and abused if there is an agenda.

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.

I wonder why New England has such a high percentage of non-religious?

This information is indeed hopeful... Maybe Dawkin's and Hitchen's harsh tactics and approaches are more effective that the religious want us to believe.

Embarrassing people for belief in silly and possibly harmful fairy tales might actually be working…

Or maybe people are discovering that the teachings of many modern religions are hypocritical and in conflict with humanitarian thought…

Later

This is great news! Frank--I'd add Bill Maher to your list.

Bill Maher mostly uses comedy to get his point across... but he does do a great job... he is totally hysterical!

Later

Chris OConnor wrote: I wonder why New England has such a high percentage of non-religious?

I don't know, but a correlation is that there are no longer any Republican members of Congress from New England. Sorry Chris.

I believe it was this same survey that identified, among those still religious, a higher percentage who said they were of the born-again persuasion. Thus, fewer overall who adhere to a religion, but more conservatism in the remaining religious.

I think recent publishings from an atheist’s perspective, and their relatively high level of exposure has made it more acceptable, or perceived more acceptable to “come out” as an atheist. Similarly, there have probably historically been a lot more atheists around than is publicly reported simply because people want to hedge a little and take the route of “the universe is god” or “God is love”, which are not really sentiments of divinity, but a sort of religious awe at existence. I consider this a de-facto rejection of religion, unless specified contrary by the person who espouses the position.

Regarding "coming out as an atheist," I like to think that the reasons one may have for not doing so are not simple. I started the "Is an agnostic a cowardly atheist" thread partly out of my own confusion and indecision. It has seemed to me as long as I have been participating in Booktalk, that being an atheist entails not just nonbelief in a creator or superintending god, but other attitudes as well, and I guess I would characterize these as aggressively against the presence of religion in history and in current life. So, it's not just having a personal nonbelief, but attacking, to some degree, participation in religious practices even if they are not of the demonstably harmful variety. At least, that is the impression I often had. It goes against my grain to set myself up as arbiter over what other people do or believe, as long as otherwise they act as reasonable, responsible citizens. Professing to believe that supernatural events occurred in the distant past and that there is a being "above us" who notes our every move, doesn't handicap the average believer. It's really a simple matter of live and let live until a line is crossed.

Hitchens has actually encouraged me by modeling an atheism that doesn't make a big deal about belief itself. He is mainly concerned with the extreme and often inhumane way in which people act when they follow the dictates of ancient religions. In the many cases where this belief has mutated rather harmlessly into supernaturally-tinged humanism, he calls off the dogs. But he still sees plenty for those dogs to attack, and I wouldn't argue with him there.

Just thought you might like to see this article from our Newspaper today.

Re: Bill Maher and Religulous:

So, you see, you are all very trendy........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/apr ... religulous

I thought it was a bit of April 1st mischief!!!

I saw Religilous a few weeks ago and I thought it was very well done. It was very funny but never mean-spirited. That article is a little off because the author says Maher is an atheist, which Maher has always denied. He has always maintained he doesn't believe in a "space daddy" and is more anti-religion than anti-theist. As for the existence of any supernatural being he says "I don't know." He did say something particularly insightful in the movie after visiting a truck stop church. That these believers will always act as if all their life's questions have been answered and they have the serenity of one with no doubts... to outsiders. Even the most staunch believer will know deep down inside that some things in "God's word" are contradicting and downright backward or cruel, they just won't admit to it openly.