Growth of non-affiliated in America Slows

[zoobernut]

I just saw this article on CNN and thought it was pretty interesting but mostly the comments were entertaining. I don't think this really means anything significant.

Bucking previous trends, survey finds growth of the religiously unaffiliated slowing

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – After years of marked growth, the size of Americans who identify with no religion slowed in 2012, according to a study released Thursday.
Since 2008, the percentage of Americans who identify as religious "nones" has grown from 14.6% to 17.8% in 2012, according to the Gallup survey. That number, which grew nearly one percentage point every year from 2008 to 2011, grew only 0.3% last year – from 17.5% in 2011 to 17.8% in 2012 – making it the smallest increase over the past five years.
This study contrasts with headlines from previous studies on religious “nones,” including a 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that found the group was the fastest growing "religious" group in America and that one in five Americans now identify with no religion.
“Although this ‘rise of the nones’ has increased dramatically over recent decades, the rate of increase slowed last year, suggesting the possibility that there may be a leveling off in this measure in the years ahead,” reports the Gallup study, which is made up of more than 350,000 interviews.
Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup, says these results suggest “that religion may be maintaining itself or even increasing in the years ahead.”
“Our current ability to look at it over five years with these big surveys suggests the possibility that the growth [of the nones] may not be inexorable,” Newport says.
CNN Belief Blog: Christmas exposes atheist divide on dealing with religion
In his book, “God is Alive and Well: The Future of Religion in America,” Newport argues that a number of factors, including baby boomers reaching senior ages, migration to more religious states, recognition of health and well being of religion and an increase in a Hispanic population, are all reasons that “we are going to continue to have a quite religious nation going forward.”
Atheist and humanist activists disagree and pushed back against the Gallup study.
“The truth is, it doesn't really matter whether one of these surveys – even a big one like Gallup – shows the number leveling off a bit this past year,” Greg Epstein, humanist chaplain at Harvard University, says. “First of all, the numbers for young Americans are still dramatically higher, and secondly, it is beyond dispute now that the "nones" are one of the largest demographic groups in the United States, and we're going to stay that way for a long, long time.”
The Gallup study also found that 27% of Americans age 18 to 29 identified as religious nones, making the age group the largest subgroup in the study. The finding tracks with other studies on religious nones, many of which have found the growth among the religiously unaffiliated has been most notable among people who are 18 to 29 years old.
“There's no slowing here at the Secular Student Alliance. We're up to 394 campus groups from 310 a year ago,” Jesse Galef, communications director at the organization, says in response to the survey. “You can see the religious future of America just by looking at the demographics: Young Americans (18-29) are almost three times as likely to be unaffiliated with religion than senior citizens are.”
In particular, Galef points out, the Secular Student Alliance has experienced growth in ages below 18, an age group that Gallup did not survey. In the last year, says Galef, the number of Secular Student Alliance affiliates at high schools doubled to 60 campuses.
CNN Belief Blog: My take: 'Atheist' isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman
News of strong growth among nones had long been heralded by their community.
As study after study began to report that religious nones in America were growing, many atheist, agnostic and humanist activists began to stress the need for these relative non-believers to come together and turn their numbers into political and social influence. Though some leaders split on what wielding that influence would look like, the size of religious nones became the impetus for many leaders to call for more recognition.
In response to the Gallup study, those calls continued.
“The real question now is when are our historically large numbers going to start turning into more votes and influence,” Epstein says. “The nones can become a steady and inspiring powerhouse in American life if we focus on what we do believe in.”
And even though the Gallup study found a relative leveling off of growth among the nones, David Silverman, the president of America Atheists, says he finds the survey “not at all troubling.”
“This underscores what American Atheists has been saying for years - that every person in America knows more nonreligious people than they think they know,” Silverman says. “America has to get used to the fact that atheists are everywhere, you already know us, and we are a vibrant and growing portion of society.”

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...ing/?hpt=hp_t3

And the comment that made me wtf. Poe's Law has me scratching my head on whether this person is being serious or being seriously funny.

Well, well here I am again my atheistic friends and foes. I'll try again if it is at all possible, to help you get rid of your fuzzyheaded ideologies. Though with all probability, a barrel full of monkeys would understand before and better than an atheist does.
Having, following or practicing a religion is one of many things that makes the difference and SEPARATES animals and Human beings.
You see, all animals especially the favorites of atheists the apes, do have, follow and practice religiously, routines and rituals; just as Humans do. However animals DO NOT have, follow or practice religion. That's something strictly HUMAN, something that's strictly "owned" and practice by Mankind.
Contrary to what some atheists, some evolutionists and supposedly Darwinism in its beginning proposed as: "Survival of the fittest or the strongest" is not always a given, much less an absolute truth among animals. For centuries different species and subspecies of all animals, bugs, birds have been observed and recorded showing affections, compassion and helping members of theirs and of other species, including men.
There should not even be a need to mention at all, the degree of affections that domestic animals and pets, even farm animals have shown their masters and owners. These animals have done so, to the point of risking their lives to protect and save a master, owner a child.
Atheists, evolutionists et al of course don't see those similarities between animals and Humans as a Clear sign of a shared and common Creator who is God and whom ONLY Humans can also call Father. Atheists don't see that because their fuzzy heads have become reprobates due to the sophisticated form of stupidity they call atheism.
Now there is a need to establish the difference of what religion is and it IS NOT. For example the worshipping of graven images, statues, figures, paintings etc is a grave and serious SIN. It is called by God and HIS Scriptures Idolatry. It is also known as paganism. Curiously and incidentally enough, Idolatry is also one Big thing that separates animals from Humans. See, though animals have routines and rituals but do not have religion, in the same way animals are not and do not practice Idolatry and paganism.

[quannum]

we're god's special creatures, checkmate atheists.

[ronin sparthos]

Atheists go in, Atheists go out. You can't explain that!

Younger folk generally aren't satisfied with the type of mainstream religion floating out there, especially when most of it is second or third hand accounts regarding a book that the adherent believer doesn't bother to read though they outwardly espouse such a deep and intimate relationship with *insert your God here*. Couple that with a global community of individuals of various religious affilation, the historical nature of the destructive elements of religion, the present-day emphasis on such things as oppressing women, obsessing over LBGT individuals and denying access to knowledge that contradicts religious text and what you have is religion on the whole marketing itself poorly to an audience that doesn't have the advantage of being properly indoctrinated.

Of course this doesn't mean religion is on its way out as science can never fill the gaps in for all individuals nor should it (an existential position is not one all could stomach) however what is in demand in the West is for religion to evolve and to become something more relevant to our age rather than what a bunch of Bronze Age men had to say to about the world. The Bible is often lovingly called the 'big book of multiple choice' and if that is true then a more relevant religion can be crafted from it if so desired.

That doesn't mean that the the old fashioned hell, brimstone and hate sects will ever subside but when you see stupid posts like the ones on Yahoo or coming out of the mouths of the members of Congress you see that demand playing out in individuals walking away from organized religion or taking "spiritual" positions.

[Dotsudoku]

Slightly off topic, but I've never met a religious person more irritating than a "spiritual" one.

I'll take a room full of devout Christians over the yuppies who just, you know, there's something there 'cause, you know- I just feel it

[GoggleHead]

At least the yuppies aren't demanding we burn all the gays at the stake.

[Dotsudoku]

As a gay, I'm not bothered

At least they have a bad reason for their stupidity. The yuppies were born into the age of shared knowledge, and still arrived at the stupidest possible conclusion without even so much as a poor reason for it

[Niiro]

I'd rather deal with a bunch of random annoying morons than a bunch of annoying morons in a cohesive group with a harmful agenda.

[ronin sparthos]

As a gay, I'm not bothered

At least they have a bad reason for their stupidity. The yuppies were born into the age of shared knowledge, and still arrived at the stupidest possible conclusion without even so much as a poor reason for it

Pure science doesn't satisfies everyones desires for explanation and the feeling of being one cog (the individual) in a larger machine (the universe) isn't exactly limited to urban professionals. Dawkins brand of atheism is fueled by the same feeling at the end of the day and he just chooses to filter it through Protestantism, science and reason.

[Dotsudoku]

To be fair, the innocent yuppies are easily one of the most guilty when it comes to the persistence of what you're referring to. If it weren't for the half-in-half-outs that have pretty successfully created a status quo of "everyone's beliefs are created equal", I dare say that keeping the full-on lunatics out of positions of power would be pretty simple

[Dotsudoku]

Pure science doesn't satisfies everyones desires for explanation and the feeling of being one cog (the individual) in a larger machine (the universe) isn't exactly limited to urban professionals. Dawkins brand of atheism is fueled by the same feeling at the end of the day and he just chooses to filter it through Protestantism, science and reason.

I'm certainly not taking a "convert the believers!" stance, because we're all entitled to be as uncritical as we like, but I'm personally unable to see that sort of perceived gap in one's life as anything but personal weakness(and don't overthink my use of 'weakness'- it probably doesn't mean what it sounds like at first glance). If millions upon millions of critical individuals are capable of taking solace in the beauty of the universe as it is, I can't take "but WHY" as an acceptable reason for abandoning rationality

[Howie Roary]

Slightly off topic, but I've never met a religious person more irritating than a "spiritual" one.

I'll take a room full of devout Christians over the yuppies who just, you know, there's something there 'cause, you know- I just feel it

I'll take a broke/hippie spiritualist over the yuppie ones any day

[Howie Roary]

I'd rather deal with a bunch of random annoying morons than a bunch of annoying morons in a cohesive group with a harmful agenda.

unless of course the harmful agenda is inside your house

[Qalbert]

THE HARMFUL AGENDA IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE

[Niiro]

idgi

[Howie Roary]

Um no, I've been saying this woman's actions were unjustified from the very beginning, seriously go back and read.

Under no circumstances does she have any right to commit violence against an intruder no matter how vulnerable or terrified she is for her own life or her children. I think I've been very consistent about that.

I'd rather deal with a bunch of random annoying morons than a bunch of annoying morons in a cohesive group with a harmful agenda.

unless of course the harmful agenda is inside your house

idgi

o ok

[Lucavi]

Eh, people find religion really quick when they get married and start belching out kids. Most of my old high school friends weren't religious until they popped out a kid and got a ring on their finger. I see a lot of non-religious singles but not a lot of "vocal" non-religious couples with kids where I live.

[Niiro]

o ok

[Hatedregret]

My issue with religion still can't be answered by science. There is always going to be that one question that will never be answered no matter how advanced we become. Something from nothing. Big bang created the universe? Cool. Where did those particles originate? God is and always has been? Cool. What/who made him?

I'm always happy to hear that we as a culture are finally breaking free of religion. It's done zero good in the past and is used more as a political talking point nowadays than anything.

[Pirian]

My issue with religion still can't be answered by science. There is always going to be that one question that will never be answered no matter how advanced we become. Something from nothing. Big bang created the universe? Cool. Where did those particles originate? God is and always has been? Cool. What/who made him?

I'm always happy to hear that we as a culture are finally breaking free of religion. It's done zero good in the past and is used more as a political talking point nowadays than anything.

Argument from ignorance. Sure is stupid up in here.

Science has constantly and consistently continued to prove that statement wrong, and its mere presence as a possibility has led to some of the greatest minds in history to stop their continued drive forward. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

[BaneTheBrawler]

What is the purpose of life?