Came across this excellent Wall Street Journal article about church attendance in Europe:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118434936941966055.html?mod=home_we_banner_left - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118434936941966055.html?mod= home_we_banner_left

The article is longish, but really good and interesting.

tl;dr = church attendance is down in Europe because state-sponsored churches don't have competition and become boring.  Chuch attendance is up in the US because secular government forces churches to compete, which makes churches kickass.

So I guess this means that socialism IS godless - sort of.

If you expect an intellegent, well-thought-out, serious and articullate answer, then.....

You have come to the wrong forum.

I'm six paragraphs in, and the political correctness has already turned me away.

Good job, wall street journal, you ruined a potentially good article with over-inflated terminology.

SandMan wrote: ... The more people are forced to go to ONE church with ONE system of beliefs, the less they seek faith and enlightenment outside themselves. Also, the longer a given church hangs around, without being challenged to constantly re-examine its self, the staler its message and the clarity of its purpose becomes.

That was the main thing I took from the article as well.  As a hardcore capitalist, I am amused by this, but not surprised.

SandMan wrote: (Quoted from article) The enemy of faith, say the supply-siders, is not modernity but state-regulated markets that shield big, established churches from competition. I would take that even further to say that, from my observation, broadly organizing ANY faith system seems to kill both its purity and its potency. I personally abandoned "the church" (of any organized religion) many years ago. To me, faith and belief have to be personal. Once you turn it into a building with mortgage payments and bills, religion becomes business... Which just kills everything. As I compare that to the study posted here, I definitely see some similarities... The more people are forced to go to ONE church with ONE system of beliefs, the less they seek faith and enlightenment outside themselves. Also, the longer a given church hangs around, without being challenged to constantly re-examine its self, the staler its message and the clarity of its purpose becomes. Hence the critical need for freedom of religion and separation of same from the governing body.

This is why I like most of America's Churches, there is far less large scale organization of church bodies, like that of the Catholic Church. But there is still the common feeling, for the most part, that we are all a part of the same Church.

What can I say, we baptists rock!

But on a more serious note, I really wish and indeed pray that all christian denomonations could come together again and simply be what we are supposed to be; The Church.

Evil Elvis wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: What can I say, we baptists rock! But on a more serious note, I really wish and indeed pray that all christian denomonations could come together again and simply be what we are supposed to be; The Church. Acording to the Pope you are all False churches. Since you cant trace back to any of the Apostoles And the Orthodox are flawed. because they can link themselves to the Apostoles but believe on the Pope. They couldnt find a more creepy looking dude

Pic don't work.

But yea, the catholics have always said that about us. But it is that kind of self-rightous thinking that caused us to seperate from them in the first place. Oh well, I still love em.

SandMan wrote: Ew... That seems like a horrible idea to me. The "one church" thing sounds like a good theory on the surface, but it just doesn't work well.

All I'm saying it is sad how we fight among ourselves, when we all believe in Jesus.

(sorry for the double post)

SandMan wrote: To tell you the truth, and this is definitely not intended to offend, but I'm not sure I believe in the same Jesus that the Baptists (or Nazarenes or AG or any other organized church) believe in. To me, they believe in their own version that's been colored by years of religion and robbed of its purity.

How so?

I'm not trying to start another religious debate, I'm just curious because I think I agree with you ( at least If you are saying what I think you are saying), I beleive too many Christians today are too focused on religion, and not a relationship with Jesus. Which (going back to the original topic) is one reason I think church going in Europe is down.

SandMan wrote: Well... Anyway... Lemme just send you a PM if you wanna know. I don't think it's appropriate to get into here.

Agreed.

SandMan wrote: Well... Anyway... Lemme just send you a PM if you wanna know. I don't think it's appropriate to get into here.

DO IT!

SandMan wrote: You can't imply too much commonality just because we both believe in the basic premise of Christianity.

This is a very true statement, but, the way I look at it:

Reguardless of the "minute" differences in practices, customs and family/individual church practices; what you must recognise is that you're all of the same general order - christian.

Granted there are major differences and long held disputes between the sects of christianity, but what you must always remember is you all have one thing in common - the bible. And, reguardless of whether or not you think the pope should rule all or not, most all christians (of whatever sort) have one pursuit alone; that of "god."

I could stay here and attempt the articulate what has already been stated in excess, but the bottom line is, whether you like it or not, you're all of the same brother hood.

(The reason why I place "god" in quotes is that of political correctness [consider it an odd occurance with me - I'm overtly boisterous and hardly ever that way]. Reguardless of what you debate "god" to be - a supernatural force, nature, a human entity, or an all-knowing invisible man in the sky; the idea is the same through out all religions if you ask me. For me "god" is the ultimate philisophical truth, the "right path," or "mother nature" as a whole. All things that are "right," in a way. "right" meaning what I say and feel is right. Which aligns itself suspiciously close to christianity and buddhism. A form of "universialism" I suppose.) 

I suspect the definition of "minute" is anything but minute.

Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Presbytarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies - the differences are only "minute" if you want to be in their club.  When you don't want them in your club anymore, suddenly the differences are no longer "minute".

It's minute as far as I'm concerned.

Basically what you're looking at is a bunch of old crusty gray haired d00ds telling me I'm loved by everyone in their group so long as I give them money. And if not? I'm not welcome.

And I'll bet the guys on the other side of the fence are the same way.

At least that's what they told me in 3 years of catholic grade school.

But then again, I'm one to talk, other than that forced endeavor I've no experience with any formal religious institution.

(I find it oddly ironic how I can read the bible on a sami regular basis, but yet despise the catholic church)

I have a lot of issues.

SandMan wrote: Is that what you're here for? I'd been wondering...

Ok poor choice of words.

...well kinda.

But there are still plenty of voids that science can't fill (insert vagina joke here).

On atheism...

First, atheism, theism, agnosticism, and similar terms are IMO fairly arbitrary labels.  The real issue is of course the underlying belief system.

That said:

I really like the concept of "atheist" as presented by Dawkins in The God Delusion.  I'll summarize/paraphrase.

Imagine a theism scale from 1 to 100, where 100 is absolute unshakable certainty in the existence of (a) god.  Conversely, 1 is absolute unshakable certainty in the non-existence of god.  50/51 is perfect agnosticism, with no inclination in either direction.

Most self-professed theists, of course, are not 100s.  Most theists have doubts, spiritual crises, etc.  So let's say that your seriously devout churchgoer is a 90-95.  Generally steadfast, but the occasional moment of doubt may enter their mind.  For most average religious folk, they are perhaps in the 75-90 range.  Pick a number.  Whatever.

Similarly, just like there are very few 100s in the world, there are very few 1s.  Most people who do not believe will in lucid moments acknowledge the possibility of a god, or have occasional flashes of faith.  So let's call your hardcore unbeliever a 5-10, and more average unbelievers 10-25.

So:  If somebody who is a 90 on the faith scale is a theist, does that not make somebody who is a 10 an atheist?  They are occupying mirror positions in terms of the strength of their convictions.  Only calling somebody an "atheist" if they are a 1 seems incorrect, unless only a true 100 gets to be a "theist".  By that that definition, we are ALL agnostic, and the terms lose their meaning.

Dawkins focuses on the functionality of the labels.  A "theist", he says, is somebody who generally lives his life "as if" god exists - i.e., that's the presumption in his head.  He may sin, but he thinks of it as sin.  He may even wonder sometimes whether god exists, but in his daily life the theist is operating on the premise that god does exist.

Similarly, the "atheist" is somebody who generally lives his life as if god does not exist.  The athest may acknowledge the possibility that hell exists and that's where is headed, but the atheist isn't terribly worried about that, and is not frightened by the prospect of eternal damnation.  Functionally speaking, god does not exist to the atheist.  The possible existence of god makes interesting cocktail convo, but that's about it.  And you don't have to be a 1 to feel this way.

To use another example from Dawkin's book:  The Easter Bunny.  Most people above the age of 7 do not believe in the Easter Bunny.  In a theoretical sense most adults can acknowledge that it is "possible" that the Easter Bunny exists, and we can never really be sure, but we live our lives with the conclusion that it does not.  I would suggest that most people are Easter Bunny Atheists, not Easter Bunny Agnostics.